Romney to kill Big Bird

[XJ-linux]

I think few of us are perfectly content with the current administration, though I find myself faced with a "lesser of two evils" decision yet again in this election.

So far, Romney has not struck me as a man of conviction, nor has his track record as a businessman left me with the impression that he has a better plan or philosophy. I have a feeling that most of us in the undecided/politically independent category feel the same way.

Unfortunately, with the two-party monopoly of the political system in this country, I find myself apathetic toward the coming election. Once again, a vote for a third party would simply mean a vote taken away from one of the two dominant parties - only serving to the betterment of the opposite party, whose candidate I equally detest. I find that a bitter pill to swallow.

Well said. They both suck at so much, it's tough to decide. I'm likely going to have to become a "1 issue voter" this time around and try to find 1 thing I care about that I believe a candidate also actually cares about in an actionable way. This year I feel as if I'm choosing between whether it is better to be hit by a city bus going 50mph, or a SUV going 100mph? Death by fire or drowning? etc...

 

[cwa107]

Well said. They both suck at so much, it's tough to decide. I'm likely going to have to become a "1 issue voter" this time around and try to find 1 thing I care about that I believe a candidate also actually cares about in an actionable way.

That's what I did last time around. My issue is the outsourcing of American jobs and manufacturing. I could write a novel about why, but at the end of the day, what lifted us up out of the Great Depression, to win the second world war and on to become a world power was the sheer strength and determination of our industry. Today, we are a mere shadow of our former selves. What we are seeing in our economy and unemployment is quite simply the after effects of decades of neglect and attrition of that industry.

I don't know what can be done about it, but I do believe that it is the role of the government to foster an environment that is palatable to industry. I also believe they can and should prevent these American companies from cutting off their nose to spite their faces (i.e. outsourcing industry for the short term gains at the stock market, at the expense of destroying their primary consumer base).

Call me naive, but I think this, more than anything, is one of several core issues that will define my generation. We can't do anything else worth doing without a strong industry.

Given what I've read of Romney's history in Bain Capital, I just don't see that he is the right man for this job, at this time. That said, Obama hasn't done anything I've seen to correct or reverse the trend to-date, despite his campaign promises. Giving handouts to the automakers didn't help them to pull manufacturing back from NAFTA nations either.

This year I feel as if I'm choosing between whether it is better to be hit by a city bus going 50mph, or a SUV going 100mph? Death by fire or drowning? etc...

Exactly.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

I think few of us are perfectly content with the current administration, though I find myself faced with a "lesser of two evils" decision yet again in this election.

So far, Romney has not struck me as a man of conviction, nor has his track record as a businessman left me with the impression that he has a better plan or philosophy. I have a feeling that most of us in the undecided/politically independent category feel the same way.

Unfortunately, with the two-party monopoly of the political system in this country, I find myself apathetic toward the coming election. Once again, a vote for a third party would simply mean a vote taken away from one of the two dominant parties - only serving to the betterment of the opposite party, whose candidate I equally detest. I find that a bitter pill to swallow.

Agreed 100%. Quite frankly I'm utterly appalled at the ongoing failure of the Republican party to develop leaders that don't seem completely out of touch with reality. Stephen Colbert had a nice segment about some statements that some of the Republican presidential contenders made regarding energy policies and alternative technologies. I just can't respect these guys.
Watch Stephen Colbert yell at a plant | Grist

Several months ago, I read an article that suggested the party was becoming increasingly anti-science. Here's one that touches on it some:
Leonard Steinhorn: How the GOP Became the Anti-Science Party

I'm not a big fan of Obama either. In fact, McCain had my vote until Palin, who I came to see as little more than a clueless bimbo, started opening her mouth. The biggest problem Obama is facing is that Congress, being a Republican majority, just won't cooperate. His vision of healthcare reform was made into a mockery as a result of the compromises he had to make to accommodate them. You can't condemn the health insurance industry for profiting off our health care needs, then turn around and mandate that everyone carry health insurance.

 

[cwa107]

Agreed 100%. Quite frankly I'm utterly appalled at the ongoing failure of the Republican party to develop leaders that don't seem completely out of touch with reality. Stephen Colbert had a nice segment about some statements that some of the Republican presidential contenders made regarding energy policies and alternative technologies. I just can't respect these guys.
Watch Stephen Colbert yell at a plant | Grist

I am so very tired of the "us versus them" mentality as a whole. How many people do you know who at their core, are all the way to the left, or all the way to right? Not many, I'd wager. And yet, people keep aligning themselves with one side or the other and then vehemently oppose the other side, and would rather argue over petty BS than try to find a middle ground and push forward. This system is broken... and the talking heads in the media do NOTHING to make it better, only worse.

I am very tired of the MSNBCs, Rachel Maddows, Keith Olbermans, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and FOX Newses of this world. The petty bickering needs to stop - we have serious issues in this country and we need to work together to fix them. The time for fingerpointing and excuse making is over. There's only so long you can blame everything bad on the last administration. Also, if you block every piece of legislation, for no other reason than to ensure the ineffectiveness of the other side, we accomplish NOTHING.

What does happen instead is apathy. And that's pretty much where I am now. Maybe that was the plan all along.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

I am so very tired of the "us versus them" mentality as a whole. How many people do you know who at their core, are all the way to the left, or all the way to right? Not many, I'd wager. And yet, people keep aligning themselves with one side or the other and then vehemently oppose the other side, and would rather argue over petty BS than try to find a middle ground and push forward. This system is broken... and the talking heads in the media do NOTHING to make it better, only worse.

I am very tired of the MSNBCs, Rachel Maddows, Keith Olbermans, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and FOX Newses of this world. The petty bickering needs to stop - we have serious issues in this country and we need to work together to fix them. The time for fingerpointing and excuse making is over. There's only so long you can blame everything bad on the last administration. Also, if you block every piece of legislation, for no other reason than to ensure the ineffectiveness of the other side, we accomplish NOTHING.

What does happen instead is apathy. And that's pretty much where I am now. Maybe that was the plan all along.

Ditto. I consider myself non-partisan because I just can't see myself falling in line with the thinking or ideologies of any one party. In my mind, it's akin to fascism and puts us on the same path that led Germany to where they were leading up to WW2. When Bush proclaimed "You're with us or you're against us"... that really disturbed me.

I also think Fox has done more to divide this country than anyone or anything else. Their idea of "fair and balanced" is to give quacks equal time with the real experts. I'm also disgusted by how they give airtime to people who are so acidic and utterly demeaning. And not just them... CNN has sunk in their own ways. I think the problem is that the corporations that own these news networks just have an agenda, and simply reporting the news in an unbiased, professional manner doesn't further that agenda.

 

[louishen]

I also think Fox has done more to divide this country than anyone or anything else. Their idea of "fair and balanced" is to give quacks equal time with the real experts. I'm also disgusted by how they give airtime to people who are so acidic and utterly demeaning. And not just them... CNN has sunk in their own ways. I think the problem is that the corporations that own these news networks just have an agenda, and simply reporting the news in an unbiased, professional manner doesn't further that agenda.

Well said.

Were lucky here in the UK in that we have the BBC, which has been called biased by both are main political parties in the past, so they must be doing a good job. Also we have interviewers who are notorious for not letting politicians give vague or fudged answers (John Humphrys on the radio and Jeremy Paxman on the TV).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9Sa-XXvYw&feature=fvwrel

I would really like to see one of those two host a Presidential debate, since they would give both candidates a really hard time. We also have Murdochs news here, but it is called Sky news, much better than Fox, probably because they have to compete against the Beeb.

Perhaps the USA needs a new science champion like Carl Sagan to make it more popular and more well understood. We have the baby faced Dr Brain Cox, ex keyboard player with the band D:Ream, television and radio presenter and real particle physicist (he works at CERN). I remember carl Sagan's Cosmos, we need a new Carl Sagan to show how cool science is.

 

[osxx]

I find it amazing that nowhere else can you hold a job and blame all thats wrong on the previous party/person/s have a lower than 50% approval rating and still hold that job but government officials.
As for health insurance I would be willing to bet that would not be an issue if the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies did not go by what the market will bare policy that in reality is so far removed from the average worker its pathetic.

 

[toMACsh]

Given the chance, Hollywood will bare all.

 

[iggibar]

I find it amazing that nowhere else can you hold a job and blame all thats wrong on the previous party/person/s have a lower than 50% approval rating and still hold that job but government officials.
As for health insurance I would be willing to bet that would not be an issue if the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies did not go by what the market will bare policy that in reality is so far removed from the average worker its pathetic.

Problem is, there's a party system which consists of only 2 major teams. Republicans and Democrats. It's actually good if your approval rating is at 50% because political bias will automatically favor the opposing party. There's also the independents, who will usually flip-flop parties at the drop of a hat(it's normal). You also have to take into account who those people are that take the time to vote on polls. They are usually the one's who have a grudge, or are willing to spend time to voice their opinions. Statiscally, the majority of people who take the time to accurately complete a poll, do so to go against what is being polled. In a job, there is no 2-party system. You're either working, or fired, no in between(with some exceptions). If we had a legitimate multi-party system, approval rating would mean a lot more to the general public. But, unfortunately, people believe that a good president should have an approval rating of 100%. That will never be possible with the current 2-party system.

People always look for truth, and Ron Paul delivered. They want truth, but aren't ready to hear, or understand the truth. I remember reading a poll done from an outside source from U.S. Army and Navy personal. It stated that amongst all polled, they had never seen such high approval ratings for an independent candidate like Ron Paul ever in their testing of those forces. The people are so decided...it's blinding.

It's kind of baffling when you actually do research on candidates. Seems like the crooked ones end up in office. Seriously research Ron Paul. It blows my mind why the people don't stand up for him, yet complain about EVERYTHING in the current system. I guess that could fall into hypocrisy.

I trust my gut more than Romney's slick-styled hair. I don't want him to be president. I want Ron Paul, and will write him in. Unfortunately, those two can't happen.
That's just my opinion.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

People always look for truth, and Ron Paul delivered. They want truth, but aren't ready to hear, or understand the truth. I remember reading a poll done from an outside source from U.S. Army and Navy personal. It stated that amongst all polled, they had never seen such high approval ratings for an independent candidate like Ron Paul ever in their testing of those forces. The people are so decided...it's blinding.

It's kind of baffling when you actually do research on candidates. Seems like the crooked ones end up in office. Seriously research Ron Paul. It blows my mind why the people don't stand up for him, yet complain about EVERYTHING in the current system. I guess that could fall into hypocrisy.

I trust my gut more than Romney's slick-styled hair. I don't want him to be president. I want Ron Paul, and will write him in. Unfortunately, those two can't happen.
That's just my opinion.

One of the problems Ron Paul faces is that, if he actually became President, no one would cooperate with him. Not the Democrats. Not the Republicans. No one. He'd be the biggest lame duck President in history because he has no one to align with as an independent (or Libertarian... whatever he is). I have no doubt that the others in Congress see him as something of a quack because of the things he says and stands for, not that I personally think he is (though I do frown on a few of the things he's said). He's just so far off the status quo that they won't want to associate with him. And this is one of the problems I have with independents and 3rd parties who kept pushing candidates for the Presidency. Even "if" they won, they'd be ineffective and ultimately damage their party and whatever values they stand for. The Libertarians and others need to completely rethink their strategies and work on getting more members into Congress. A LOT more. Until then, quite frankly voting for Ron Paul or anyone else outside the 2-party system for President is naive and literally a waste of a vote. Not that I don't understand the motivation behind it. I voted for Ralph Nader once (embarrassed to say) and really really liked Ross Perot and voted for him. Today though I realize how ill-conceived it was. Look at what happened to Al Gore... Ralph Nader "may" have cost him the election (that's NOT the year I voted for Nader). IIRC, a lot of people who voted for Nader realized they screwed up as the polls neared closing and tried to get back in to change their votes.

 

[vansmith]

I am so very tired of the "us versus them" mentality as a whole. How many people do you know who at their core, are all the way to the left, or all the way to right? Not many, I'd wager. And yet, people keep aligning themselves with one side or the other and then vehemently oppose the other side, and would rather argue over petty BS than try to find a middle ground and push forward.

Problem is, there's a party system which consists of only 2 major teams. Republicans and Democrats.

There's the problem. When gives two choices, you end up getting lumped with people who vote the same but may have divergent views. This is why two party systems belie the nuanced nature of politics.

While I certainly don't offer up the Canadian system as a model, the presence of five parties (who actually have seats in the Commons) at the federal level gives us a little more choice. Although multi party systems certainly have their faults, it does let people vote for different parties while still getting parties that meet their interests. This is something I've never quite understood about American politics. Why isn't there a third party?

People always look for truth, and Ron Paul delivered. They want truth, but aren't ready to hear, or understand the truth.

There's no such thing as truth in politics.

 

[cwa107]

There's no such thing as truth in politics.

Now, THAT'S the truth!

 

[iggibar]

There's no such thing as truth in politics.

True from a pessimist's point of view. Plenty of truth exist in politics. Most people expect 100% truth every time. Not everything is always a lie just because one phrase/statement is known to be a lie. If government is seriously comprised of 100% fallacy, then people have failed the government, not the other way around. We would be the one's who vote liars into office. Is that not the truth?

PS: I like this discussion. But, I believe it can easily get out of hand. We can prevent that.

 

[vansmith]

True from a pessimist's point of view. Plenty of truth exist in politics. Most people expect 100% truth every time. Not everything is always a lie just because one phrase/statement is known to be a lie. If government is seriously comprised of 100% fallacy, then people have failed the government, not the other way around. We would be the one's who vote liars into office. Is that not the truth?

Truth is skewed in politics. If it wasn't, you'd have politicians agreeing with each other instead of them referencing studies that serve up opposed "truths". Sit two politicians down in a room and watch them spew out different statistics that make their argument look true.

I'm not saying that the politicians lie. In fact, most of them don't outright lie. The problem here is that you dichotomized knowledge into being something that is either true or a lie. There is a "grey area" when it comes to truth. As such, there are different interpretations of data that can be made into truth but in reality, it's knowledge viewed through an ideological lens such that it appears true. We all do it and do it all the time. The very fact that a politician runs from a party platform already negates any claims of "objective truth" in many cases since they've already professed that they are arguing something from a particular position.

I know for instance that I think particular things are "true" and obvious but I also recognize that I have particular biases that make them appear true. In fact, some of the most engaging (and frustrating) conversations I've had are ones with people who also think they possess "truth" about particular subjects.

At the risk of getting philosophical, I'll stop there for now.

PS: I like this discussion. But, I believe it can easily get out of hand. We can prevent that.

It gets out of hand when people disagree with my version of truth.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

There's no such thing as truth in politics.

Nope. Just "truthiness".

 

[iggibar]

it gets out of hand when people disagree with my version of truth.

lol

 

[baggss]

Problem is, there's a party system which consists of only 2 major teams. Republicans and Democrats.

While that is true, those 2 parties contain factions that often vary widely in beliefs and convictions yet still fall under the broader category. Not very Democrat is a left wing looney nor is every Republican a Tea Party member. This really is how the system was designed to work and those who think are horrible have no real clue as to the history of US politics. Things have been relatively peaceful since the 30s but overall American political history is full of fights, mud slinging, name calling and all rest.

The other problem with a serious third party is that it introduces the possibility the no one could win. Without that magic 270 electoral votes reached, we have no winner and the constitution really doesn't point at what to do if that happens. WE could change the system if we wanted to, but frankly I don't think we as group of citizens really want to tamper with the system.

Again, missing the point.

Romney was asked what he would do to reduce the deficit. The only thing he could come up with is something that costs each taxpayer ... $1.50.

Do YOU think that will balance the budget? Hands up everyone who thinks hurting PBS will balance the budget.

I think you are missing both the bigger picture and the point. This is the "death by 1000 paper cuts" analogy. One paper cut hurts but is unlikely to kill you, 1000 of them at once, and you'll bleed to death. Alone, each of the small things is small and doesn't cost a lot. Added up though a lot of those small things are a large number. Sure, it's probably not enough to balance the budget, but there comes a point where every little bit helps and the loss of them, when taken together, is likely to hurt less than the overall cost of keeping them.

All that being said, I would encourage anyone here who believes that a service like PBS makes a difference and is worth fighting for to donate to their local PBS station. I believe the public funds should be cut but I also have donated to my local PBS station here in SoCal.