2012 Election Thread (probably contains partisan bickering)

[cards2468]

Here is another idea I've floated before:
The U.S. Should Require All Citizens to Vote

Why would increasing turnout make a difference? It is not that high turnout is a surefire indicator of civic health and democratic values -- the former Soviet Union, after all, boasted 98 percent turnouts. The greater impact is on the culture of politicians. Australian politicians of all stripes say that knowing both parties' bases will certainly vote motivates them to focus on those persuadable voters in the middle. They do not emphasize the kinds of wedge issues like guns, gays, or abortion that dominate American discourse. Instead, politicians focus on the bigger questions -- like the economy, jobs, and education -- that drive the voters in the middle, and they avoid the kind of vicious or vitriolic campaign rhetoric that turns off the persuadable voters.

If the Soviet Union did it, it has to be good, right?

[slide_into_first]

If voting were important they would make it illegal.

[vinsanity]

you're the one who said 'cut everything by x percent' not the original post.

I think the suggestion is that using a hard number to cut anything by is kind of a short cut instead of looking at each program and cutting based on value added. Cutting 43% of defense spending might not be enough while cutting 43% of food stamps may not be the best economic choice. Picking an arbitrary amount to cut by for an arbitrary number of programs is a way to avoid having to make hard decisions. Like zero tolerance policies.

Here is another idea I've floated before:
The U.S. Should Require All Citizens to Vote

Why would increasing turnout make a difference? It is not that high turnout is a surefire indicator of civic health and democratic values -- the former Soviet Union, after all, boasted 98 percent turnouts. The greater impact is on the culture of politicians. Australian politicians of all stripes say that knowing both parties' bases will certainly vote motivates them to focus on those persuadable voters in the middle. They do not emphasize the kinds of wedge issues like guns, gays, or abortion that dominate American discourse. Instead, politicians focus on the bigger questions -- like the economy, jobs, and education -- that drive the voters in the middle, and they avoid the kind of vicious or vitriolic campaign rhetoric that turns off the persuadable voters.

If the Soviet Union did it, it has to be good, right?

I'm not sure compulsary voting is the right the move, but an election "week" or national holliday at least would be good. Allow more who want to vote, especially in non-presidential cycles, to get to the polls and voice their opinion.

Also, why are your images black?

[cards2468]

I'm not sure compulsary voting is the right the move, but an election "week" or national holliday at least would be good. Allow more who want to vote, especially in non-presidential cycles, to get to the polls and voice their opinion.

Also, why are your images black?

I agree with that. Every American should have the "right" to vote, meaning having the time to do so should be available to everybody.


Michael made them for me. I found them in this thread:
http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

you're the one who said 'cut everything by x percent' not the original post.

I think the suggestion is that using a hard number to cut anything by is kind of a short cut instead of looking at each program and cutting based on value added. Cutting 43% of defense spending might not be enough while cutting 43% of food stamps may not be the best economic choice. Picking an arbitrary amount to cut by for an arbitrary number of programs is a way to avoid having to make hard decisions. Like zero tolerance policies.

Again, I think you need to understand what the original post said. Because you're not arguing what is being said.

His platform for his 2012 bid: priority 1) cut spending, especially w/r/t national defense and the drug war. His only "day-1 promise" has been to submit a balanced budget to congress. He advocates cutting most programs by 43%

Then greenback comes along and says

"Cut everything by X%" sounds like a way to avoid making decisions.

It's not arguing what RX said.

Johnson's said plenty of times overall the federal budget needs to be slashed by 43%. He may even use it as a default answer to questions that he doesn't have a finalized plan for regarding a policy. But when you listen to him talk, you certainly don't get the feelig he's going to start writing checks for 57 cents to everyone instead of giving them their normal dollar. He starts with military spending. Almost always. And, when you listen to him, you get the feeling it'll be a bigger cut than 43%. For instance, I heard him talking about the 100,000 soldiers in Europe. It went something like "Do we need 100K soldiers in Europe? No. Hell do we even need 57K? Probably not"

If you all continue with this ridiculous argument that cutting every program 43% is a horrible idea and shows a lack of a plan and an inability to make decisions and that is what his plan in, then I'm going to start saying Obama thinks the Star Spangled Banner needs to be 'changed' and isn't an American.

[vinsanity]

Again, I think you need to understand what the original post said. Because you're not arguing what is being said.

I read exactly what was said and I don't appreciate the condescending tone.

His platform for his 2012 bid: priority 1) cut spending, especially w/r/t national defense and the drug war. His only "day-1 promise" has been to submit a balanced budget to congress. He advocates cutting most programs by 43%

"Cut everything by X%" sounds like a way to avoid making decisions.

Your quote. Right there. The way that's worded suggests that most programs, your words and not mine, need to be cut by 43%. Not that spending needs to be cut by 43% in total, which is a different matter. Greenback said that cutting 43% from every program is away to make those cuts without making decisions. He is correct.

If you all continue with this ridiculous argument that cutting every program 43% is a horrible idea and shows a lack of a plan and an inability to make decisions and that is what his plan in, then I'm going to start saying Obama thinks the Star Spangled Banner needs to be 'changed' and isn't an American.

How is it ridiculous when it's your words? If you meant it differently than it's worded, I understand that and it's fine. Clear up the confusion instead of continuing to quote the same misleading sentence and say there's a ridiculous argument. Please choose:

1. Johnson's position is that federal spending should be reduced by 43% to be met with varying cuts across many programs.
2. Johnson's position is that federal spendign should be reduced by 43% by cutting most programs by 43% exactly.

2 is a ridiculous position that avoids making decisions. That's what you stated his position as above. 1 is at least...comprehensible.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Jesus [expletive] christ. We're parsing words here which is always a grand time. But #1 could = #2 because of the word most. What definition of most are we using here? Most > or = 51%? What does varying entail? What about many?

In no way to RX ever say he wants to cut everything by 43% which is what the counterargument was. it's [expletive] stupid and annoying waste of time argument having to explain that most (which isn't even quantified) and everything don't mean the same thing.

Back to the important part of this, I'm going to say that #1 is the more correct statement.

Cutting 43% from every program to cut the budget 43% total is a stupid idea and takes little thought. True. But, that's not what anyone said because lo and behold most and everything don't mean the same thing.

And, going back even further, most might be an overstatement. Hence, exaggerating a hyperbolic statement to make a strawman is a horrible argument, waste of time and incredibly misleading way to present the facts.

Well, it took all of about half a day for me to get annoyed all while not even talking about the facts, positions or previous performance. So, peace out.

[vinsanity]

Jesus [expletive] christ. We're parsing words here which is always a grand time. But #1 could = #2 because of the word most. What definition of most are we using here? Most > or = 51%? What does varying entail? What about many?

In no way to RX ever say he wants to cut everything by 43% which is what the counterargument was. it's [expletive] stupid and annoying waste of time argument having to explain that most (which isn't even quantified) and everything don't mean the same thing.

You still don't understand the confusion on this statement?

He advocates cutting most programs by 43%

That's not misrepresenting at all. The counterargument isn't about all vs most. The issue taken was with 43% arbitrary cuts vs 90% cuts in some places against 10% cuts in others to reach a 43% reduction is spending.

He said he advocates cutting most programs by 43%. The word most isn't the confusion here. This statement says cutting a by 43% and b by 43% and c by 43% is the goal. Maybe it make more sense to cut x by 90% to get to an overall reduction by 43%?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but that was the confusion. Cursing and insulting someone because they didn't understand a confusing statement is not helpful. This isn't calling someone out for your vs you're when the intent was clear. The statement made implies 43% reductions to programs he chooses, instead of a 43% reduction in total spending by varying cuts in programs. You understand how those are different statements? The former is what was said, you seem to be arguing the latter is what was meant and that's fine.

Making a static, arbitrary cut to any number of programs just to reduce the total spent is arbitrary and avoids decisions. Setting a goal for overall reduction of 43% by cutting some number of federal programs at least offers the chance to make decisions.

[Arthur Dent]

Also, a 43% cut to federal spending is stupid and a pipe dream no matter how allocated.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Jesus [expletive] christ. We're parsing words here which is always a grand time. But #1 could = #2 because of the word most. What definition of most are we using here? Most > or = 51%? What does varying entail? What about many?

In no way to RX ever say he wants to cut everything by 43% which is what the counterargument was. it's [expletive] stupid and annoying waste of time argument having to explain that most (which isn't even quantified) and everything don't mean the same thing.

You still don't understand the confusion on this statement?

He advocates cutting most programs by 43%

That's not misrepresenting at all. The counterargument isn't about all vs most. The issue taken was with 43% arbitrary cuts vs 90% cuts in some places against 10% cuts in others to reach a 43% reduction is spending.

He said he advocates cutting most programs by 43%. The word most isn't the confusion here. This statement says cutting a by 43% and b by 43% and c by 43% is the goal. Maybe it make more sense to cut x by 90% to get to an overall reduction by 43%?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but that was the confusion. Cursing and insulting someone because they didn't understand a confusing statement is not helpful. This isn't calling someone out for your vs you're when the intent was clear. The statement made implies 43% reductions to programs he chooses, instead of a 43% reduction in total spending by varying cuts in programs. You understand how those are different statements? The former is what was said, you seem to be arguing the latter is what was meant and that's fine.

Making a static, arbitrary cut to any number of programs just to reduce the total spent is arbitrary and avoids decisions. Setting a goal for overall reduction of 43% by cutting some number of federal programs at least offers the chance to make decisions.

Here's how I responsded to Greenbacks counterargument:

Are you trying to say a candidate doesn't have priorities by mis-representing 1 bullet point from a summary posted by a rando supporter (on a Cardinals message board no less) of the candidate?

what RX said originally 'most' programs likely isn't exactly correct.

Here's the positions regarding spending and the deficit. Notice it nowhere mentions cutting most, any or all programs by 43%.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/s ... he-deficit