Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Romney is my favourite Republican, because I heard he did something public healthcare somehow as a senator, and because he's just so damn handsome. He looks like a Hollywood President, dammit.

So he's your favorite because of 1) one particular thing you heard he did this one time, somehow, and 2) because he looks good. If you don't live in the US, I suggest moving here immediately. You'd fit right into our current level of political discourse.

I said favourite Republican, not favourite candidate. On the other hand I'm really doubtful about Obama too these days i'd still rather have a Democrat in charge, and I'm not certain any republican would do the things Obama does bad any better. Like the messing with civil rights bullshit.

Also, since I'm not American and have no say in the election, I am free to base my favouriting on however frivolous stuff I want. Until the election is over, it's all just a Big Drama to me, and not something I'm serious about. It's not like I could possibly change anything anyway, so I might as well have fun with it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Romney is my favourite Republican, because I heard he did something public healthcare somehow as a senator, and because he's just so damn handsome. He looks like a Hollywood President, dammit.

He invented about half of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and passed it in Massachusetts. He then voted against Obamacare in the Senate because of his stance on State's Rights.

Insanity. 

[Aqizzar]

He invented about half of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and passed it in Massachusetts. He then voted against Obamacare in the Senate because of his stance on State's Rights.

Mitt Romney is not and was never a Senator.  In 1994 he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost, that's it.

I always think it's hilarious when he starts talking about "career politicians" and "Washington insiders" when Romney's either been running for an office or holding one for nearly twenty years.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He invented about half of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and passed it in Massachusetts. He then voted against Obamacare in the Senate because of his stance on State's Rights.

Mitt Romney is not and was never a Senator.  In 1994 he ran against Ted Kennedy and lost, that's it.

Arg, memory fail. He invented about half of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and passed it in Massachusetts as the state's Governor. Then he publicly came out against Obamacare because of his stance on State's Rights.

Still insanity.

[ECrownofFire]

Ron Paul could get a real shot at the nomination at this point.

[Andir]

But it sets a precedent where men can just say, "Screw you woman! The government pays for it."

Yeah that's the point. People who go up to a women wanting to avoid the responsibility of parenthood (through abortion or adoption) and say "you had sex so deal with the consequences" are pretty monstrous. Yet people can go up to a man and say the same thing? Doesn't follow. The aim would be to fix that by giving fathers similar options.

Some women may even prefer to have the government pay for their child instead of having a husband.

They would have absolutely zero say in whether the father gives up his rights or not.

It could delegate men to sperm farmers.

What.

It depends if the woman can get a court injunction against the father.  We were just talking about some girl's parents trying to prevent some man from being involved in their daughter's child birthing process, were we not?

If a woman wanted to have a child, she could go coax some guy and claim he raped her to get him out of her life and she has a child that she doesn't have to pay for.  E: Oh, and she ruins his life for the rest of his "sex offender" term.

[G-Flex]

Ron Paul could get a real shot at the nomination at this point.

Not going to happen. Ron Paul's popularity relies on him not playing the role of the political campaigner much, and not being scrutinized or taken seriously a hell of a lot by his opponents. He's not a viable candidate. Hell, he barely even wanted to run this time.

[GlyphGryph]

Arg, memory fail. He invented about half of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and passed it in Massachusetts as the state's Governor. Then he publicly came out against Obamacare because of his stance on State's Rights.

Still insanity.

Honestly don't see what's insane about that. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to hold to me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Honestly don't see what's insane about that. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to hold to me.

I don't share any belief in the whole State's Rights cause. This man publicly denounced his own policy because it was going to apply to the nation as a whole and not just Massachusetts. Just....what? In my eyes, that is a practically schizophrenic way to go about determining policy positions.

[G-Flex]

No, it isn't. Some things are left up to the states. I don't think health care should be one of them, but some things are. You're effectively saying it's insane for any politician, ever, to say that anything should be left up to the states.

[kaijyuu]

Honestly don't see what's insane about that. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to hold to me.

I don't share any belief in the whole State's Rights cause. This man publicly denounced his own policy because it was going to apply to the nation as a whole and not just Massachusetts. Just....what? In my eyes, that is a practically schizophrenic way to go about determining policy positions.

How so? The idea behind states rights is states choosing what's best for themselves, not other people choosing what's best for them. What's best for Massachusetts might not be best for everyone.

No non sequiturs required.

[SalmonGod]

The two most common themes I run into among states rights advocates

1.  The smaller the government is, the easier it is to hold it accountable for its actions.  A person wronged by state government has much more potential for recourse than someone wronged by federal government.

2.  If someone doesn't like the way things are in one state, there is at least some chance that there will be another state they can go to which will be more to their liking.

The two most common opposing themes I've seen

1.  Local governments have a higher tendency towards corruption.

2.  There are too many moral issues that need to be enforced universally, because the consequences of many cultural attitudes that would prevail in many places are too dire to leave up to them.  Women's and minority rights are one commonly cited issue.

I'm kind of neutral on the subject, because I think both sides have strong points.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, it isn't. Some things are left up to the states. I don't think health care should be one of them, but some things are. You're effectively saying it's insane for any politician, ever, to say that anything should be left up to the states.

Why should they be? I see little reason for the states to decide anything that has any federal importance.

[ECrownofFire]

Personally I think the federal government doesn't need to do much at all. Just slap down some constitutional rights (and a supreme court to go along with it), a unified military, roads, common currency, and you're done. Beyond that, the states are perfectly fine to handle it on their own.

No, it isn't. Some things are left up to the states. I don't think health care should be one of them, but some things are. You're effectively saying it's insane for any politician, ever, to say that anything should be left up to the states.

Why should they be? I see little reason for the states to decide anything that has any federal importance.

Which is why they don't?

[Criptfeind]

No, it isn't. Some things are left up to the states. I don't think health care should be one of them, but some things are. You're effectively saying it's insane for any politician, ever, to say that anything should be left up to the states.

Why should they be? I see little reason for the states to decide anything that has any federal importance.

Uh. Your preaching to the choir here. And missing the point. The point is that if Mitt Romney believed that healthcare was not something that should be controlled by the... Er. Missing a word here. If he thinks it should be left up to the states or does not have "federal importance" then it is perfectly acceptable for him to come up for something for one state, then dislike all states having to do that.

Personally I think the federal government doesn't need to do much at all. Just slap down some constitutional rights (and a supreme court to go along with it), a unified military, roads, common currency, and you're done. Beyond that, the states are perfectly fine to handle it on their own.

Eh. First off, I disagree with you, for instance, education I think should be helped more. Secondly, how do you determine the rights? For instance, since we are talking about it a bit: Is health care a right?