Frankenstorm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I was curious because I did see a news report of Christie applauding Obama's handling, and if it seems in contrast with, say, Katrina, very well. Plus I thought it might not hurt to look presidential in the week before an election, show people you have the experience and the authority etc.

---

On the flip side we have campaign events "cancelled" but replaced with "relief events" in the same time and place. Donation runs that have not been requested (they actually slow stuff down [remember people, money is the #1 need for these organizations immediately after a disaster]), relief events that are being staged, and refusing to answer questions around earlier claims to want to shutdown FEMA.

but no, its to late in the game to sway a noticeable portion of the vote, local news today said 25% of my local area has already voted and almost everyone seems pretty much set in their decision.

That Romney rally turned relief effort was bizarre. Buzzfeed said the campaign bought a bunch of stuff to stage in the truck at Walmart, in case people didn't bring canned goods. :rolleyes:

Romney's views on FEMA should be re-covered by the media. His budget would cut FEMA funding by 40%, with states funding their own disaster relief.

As opposed to Obama who actually cut FEMA funding last year?

Meanwhile, the number of Federally-declared "disasters" has gone from ~20/year in the 1980s to almost 200/year these days.

It's rancid pork, mixed in with some high-quality foodstuff. Romney isn't really talking about changing the status quo too much, but about letting FEMA buttress state efforts instead of directing them.

It's a subtle argument and people can argue about it forever. But he's not talking about eliminating FEMA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

As opposed to Obama who actually cut FEMA funding last year?

---

Wow wasn't that like because FEMA's budget was extra high after Katrina and projected funding needs were like a few hundred million dollars below what they were allocated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

As opposed to Obama who actually cut FEMA funding last year?

---

Those "cuts" meant streamlining and coordinating, which would save money in bureaucratic red tape. Something everyone should agree is a Good Thing.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, the number of Federally-declared "disasters" has gone from ~20/year in the 1980s to almost 200/year these days.

---

That make perfect sense. Not only is our population greater than the 80's, but our population density has become more concentrated in certain areas --- specifically on the coasts --- which are vulnerable to hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, and "water events" in general. Whether it's snow, melting snow, rain, or ocean water blasting its way on shore. Those coasts are also prime trading centers for our nation, and crucial to our economy and international trade.

Quote:

---

It's rancid pork, mixed in with some high-quality foodstuff. Romney isn't really talking about changing the status quo too much, but about letting FEMA buttress state efforts instead of directing them.

It's a subtle argument and people can argue about it forever. But he's not talking about eliminating FEMA.

---

FEMA reorganized (post Katrina, post Bush failure) to give more logistical powers to states and localities. Today's FEMA is led by Fugate---a Republican. It's not subtle at all for Romney/Ryan to propose 40% cuts in FEMA funding, and throw that funding back to states. That's right in yer face, Mr. NYC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

But he's not talking about eliminating FEMA.

---

When asked if FEMA should be shuttered his response was "absolutely".

You could try to argue that his position to put the burden on the states, or privatize disaster relief, could delivery a comparable response, but don't confuse that with his rather direct stance that FEMA would be no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wow wasn't that like because FEMA's budget was extra high after Katrina and projected funding needs were like a few hundred million dollars below what they were allocated?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Those "cuts" meant streamlining and coordinating, which would save money in bureaucratic red tape. Something everyone should agree is a Good Thing.

---

So when Obama makes a cut, it's a Good Thing but when Romney proposes a cut it's a Bad Thing.

Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

So when Obama makes a cut, it's a Good Thing but when Romney proposes a cut it's a Bad Thing.

Gotcha.

---

When President Obama makes a cut, it's done within an existing framework, using elected representatives. When Romney proposes a cut it's done in the ether-sphere. He assumes elected reps will follow along, or that the private sector will pick up the slack, or that no one will be checking his math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

So when Obama makes a cut, it's a Good Thing but when Romney proposes a cut it's a Bad Thing.

Gotcha.

---

Uhh clearly you haven't :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

When President Obama makes a cut, it's done within an existing framework, using elected representatives. When Romney proposes a cut it's done in the ether-sphere. He assumes elected reps will follow along, or that the private sector will pick up the slack, or that no one will be checking his math.

---

...

That's what happens when you are in a position to enact change versus someone who is not currently elected who is running for office. This is one of the most absurd possible criticism you could level at a challenger. Of course when they aren't in a position to enact change, they aren't acting within the existing framework. They can't. By definition they are outside that framework. By this same token, Obama's '08 pledges were equally suspect. After all, he was just throwing out ideas in the ether-sphere, assuming elected representatives would follow along, and that no one would be checking his math.

Come now.

There are valid criticisms of Romney. You could be making these criticisms. You don't have to reach to find the most rusty of logical chains to make your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

...

That's what happens when you are in a position to enact change versus someone who is not currently elected who is running for office. This is one of the most absurd possible criticism you could level at a challenger. Of course when they aren't in a position to enact change, they aren't acting within the existing framework. They can't. By definition they are outside that framework. By this same token, Obama's '08 pledges were equally suspect. After all, he was just throwing out ideas in the ether-sphere, assuming elected representatives would follow along, and that no one would be checking his math.

Come now.

There are valid criticisms of Romney. You could be making these criticisms. You don't have to reach to find the most rusty of logical chains to make your point.

---

Most politicians are smart enough to realize there are fact-checkers for their proposals. Obama's pledges in '08 were equally scrutinized. Romney's ether-sphere isn't just because it's outside legislative framework, it's because the math doesn't add up. When he's questioned on it, he waffles or claims his proposals are misunderstood, but fails to give details. He hasn't answered press questions, or done any interviews, for over three weeks. He makes speeches filled with falsehoods, then sends a spokesperson out the next day to "clarify" things. And he's still running ads with blatant lies in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Most politicians are smart enough to realize there are fact-checkers for their proposals. Obama's pledges in '08 were equally scrutinized. Romney's ether-sphere isn't just because it's outside legislative framework, it's because the math doesn't add up. When he's questioned on it, he waffles or claims his proposals are misunderstood, but fails to give details. He hasn't answered press questions, or done any interviews, for over three weeks. He makes speeches filled with falsehoods, then sends a spokesperson out the next day to "clarify" things. And he's still running ads with blatant lies in them.

---

So, your contention is that Romney's math doesn't add up, but Obama's does? Is that why unemployment is back down under 5.8%? Or why there are green jobs bursting from the likes of Solyndra, A123, and Abound Solar? Jobs that would pay for themselves mind you, and these gleaming companies, corporations on a hill, would be leading the way into a bright, green future, with a green job around every corner, and a solar panel on every roof? What about closing down Guantanamo Bay? Or allowing a five day public sunshine period on bills before he signs them? Or running ads that imply that Romney is indirectly responsible for the deaths of the families of steelworkers by heartlessly gutting companies and sending their cancer ridden wives to the gulags?

Basically, you believe only Romney plays politics?

Let me tell you about this bridge I know of. Like new, only slight storm damage, and one heckuva deal.

My contention is that Romney's proposals (and math) is ether. No budget analysis has been able to pin him down, or "do the math", without making broad assumptions. Close which tax loopholes, end which tax deductions, strip which programs? He'd cut taxes across the board, and slash some programs. Which ones? What's going to fund his military expansion AND maintain SS, Medicare, Veteran benefits AND balance the budget AND get rid of the deficit? The ether fairy.

He once stated that FEMA should be ended, but now he's changed his mind. Again. His only consistency is being inconsistent. This isn't just my opinion, but a criticism shared by millions of people, including some of his fellow Republicans.

Now that Frankenstorm is history, with ongoing complications, we should probably move these specifics to the FEMA thread, or the Romney/Ryan thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

My contention is that Romney's proposals (and math) is ether. No budget analysis has been able to pin him down, or "do the math", without making broad assumptions. Close which tax loopholes, end which tax deductions, strip which programs? He'd cut taxes across the board, and slash some programs. Which ones? What's going to fund his military expansion AND maintain SS, Medicare, Veteran benefits AND balance the budget AND get rid of the deficit? The ether fairy.

---

Which is different from what Obama has been doing... how again?

Okay, for some reason you don't want to post this in R/R or FEMA. Whatever.

Don't forget that Obama tasked the Bowles/Simpson commission for proposals, and presented them to congress. No go. Obama offered 3-to-1 tax cuts to revenue spending. Again, no go from the (R) held congress. There's only so much a POTUS can do when met with purposeful obstruction from legislators whose stated goals aren't to conduct business for the nation, but ensure he's a one term president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Okay, for some reason you don't want to post this in R/R or FEMA. Whatever.

Don't forget that Obama tasked the Bowles/Simpson commission for proposals, and presented them to congress. No go. Obama offered 3-to-1 tax cuts to revenue spending. Again, no go from the (R) held congress. There's only so much a POTUS can do when met with purposeful obstruction from legislators whose stated goals aren't to conduct business for the nation, but ensure he's a one term president.

---

I'm not seeing an answer to the question.

Are you saying that Obama has been fiscally responsible?

I'm saying he's been more honest and up-front than Romney. I'd rather have a clear tax-and-spend agenda than a fuzzy alternative that promises tax-and-spending-cuts without details.

edit: Enoch, just spill the beans and express your own opinion about Obama or Romney. You don't need to keep asking me leading questions in order to do that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I'm saying he's been more honest and up-front than Romney. I'd rather have a clear tax-and-spend agenda than a fuzzy alternative that promises tax-and-spending-cuts without details.

edit: Enoch, just spill the beans and express your own opinion about Obama or Romney. You don't need to keep asking me leading questions in order to do that. ;)

---

And I'm saying that there is a really fine bridge in Manhattan that would be just perfect for you.

I don't like either of them, and I'm not planning on voting for either of them. I'll throw mine away on some third party candidate who I'll still have reservations about, but who hopefully haven't sold what meager monads pass as a politicians soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm not seeing an answer to the question.

Are you saying that Obama has been fiscally responsible?

---

What she's saying is that Romney and Ryan are being too shifty with their budget for it to be assessed, never mind trusted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What she's saying is that Romney and Ryan are being too shifty with their budget for it to be assessed, never mind trusted

---

Which is great, but it wasn't the question. I'm not interested in understanding why she doesn't like Romney & Ryan. I'm interested in why she thinks Obama is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

When President Obama makes a cut, it's done within an existing framework, using elected representatives. When Romney proposes a cut it's done in the ether-sphere. He assumes elected reps will follow along, or that the private sector will pick up the slack, or that no one will be checking his math.

---

:bulb: Translation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

So when Obama makes a cut, it's a Good Thing but when Romney proposes a cut it's a Bad Thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Which is great, but it wasn't the question. I'm not interested in understanding why she doesn't like Romney & Ryan. I'm interested in why she thinks Obama is different.

---

You're not really interested in what I think. You could just as easily lean on Romney supporters, and demand explanations for why they think he's either "better" than Obama, or "different" from Bush.

Nope, your interest is aimed at dissing the political process, and 'soulless' politicians, in a general way. I've joined you in those complaints and criticisms before! But I can't/won't agree that voting for any candidate from the two main parties is somehow endorsing the process/parties/politicking. Or that it deserves disdain.

Quote:

---

I don't like either of them, and I'm not planning on voting for either of them. I'll throw mine away on some third party candidate who I'll still have reservations about, but who hopefully haven't sold what meager monads pass as a politicians soul.

---

Surprised you aren't a Gary Johnson (L) supporter, and that you think your vote is a throw-away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You're not really interested in what I think. You could just as easily lean on Romney supporters, and demand explanations for why they think he's either "better" than Obama, or "different" from Bush.

---

Er, I have.

Quote:

---

Nope, your interest is aimed at dissing the political process, and 'soulless' politicians, in a general way. I've joined you in those complaints and criticisms before! But I can't/won't agree that voting for any candidate from the two main parties is somehow endorsing the process/parties/politicking. Or that it deserves disdain.

---

I don't believe that voting for a Republican or a Democrat is deserving of disdain. I do think that putting on blinders when it comes to the sins of the party you endorse, while wielding a microscope when it comes to the candidate you oppose is foolhardy. If you prefer Obama for real, substantive reasons then I'd like to hear them. If you prefer him because he's not Romney, I get that too. What I can't understand is trying to airbrush your preferred candidate if you don't actually believe they are a saint.

Saint's don't get elected president GeeGee, and ignoring the faults of your horse is a recipe for disappointment.

Quote:

---

Surprised you aren't a Gary Johnson (L) supporter, and that you think your vote is a throw-away.

---

He is the third party candidate I'm going to vote for.

As far as voting for a third party candidate, it is of course a meaningless vote, made more meaningless by the likely outcome in my state. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no expectation on my part that Gary Johnson will win, or make much of a difference in the results of the election. Personally, I'd much rather throw away my vote than compromise my values.

Isn't he the guy who spent the majority of his donation money on blackjack and hookers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Isn't he the guy who spent the majority of his donation money on blackjack and hookers?

---

Given his war chest he must not be getting very classy hookers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't believe that voting for a Republican or a Democrat is deserving of disdain. I do think that putting on blinders when it comes to the sins of the party you endorse, while wielding a microscope when it comes to the candidate you oppose is foolhardy. If you prefer Obama for real, substantive reasons then I'd like to hear them. If you prefer him because he's not Romney, I get that too. What I can't understand is trying to airbrush your preferred candidate if you don't actually believe they are a saint.

---

For the record, I haven't endorsed any party. And I've certainly never painted any candidate or past president as a Saint, including Reagan (long held as Patron Saint of Republicans). :rolleyes:

Yes, I have been more critical of the GOP because they've embraced/endorsed candidates (and a platform) that include bat shit insane religious zealots, xenophobes, homophobes, and military empire control freaks. They sold their soul to the Tea Party fringe, Grover Norquist, Bible thumpers, and Rovian tactics of divide and conquer. Their silence against the racists, sexists or birthers in their midst made them complicit in that kind of hate, and no amount of "fiscal responsibility" claims can outweigh that.

Quote:

---

Saint's don't get elected president GeeGee, and ignoring the faults of your horse is a recipe for disappointment.

---

I'm tired of this kind of broad blanket stereo-type. It's the same crap we've heard for 5-6 years now -- when it was Obama vs McCain -- and anyone who didn't vote (R) was an automatic Obama fanboy, a closet sssocialist, un-American, un-patriotic, anti-freeedom, a deluded Hopey-Changey lib'rul who'd ruin enterprise and innovation, and turn our nation into a European Welfare State....and they just can't see Obama's flaws or faults. :donkey:

Quote:

---

He is the third party candidate I'm going to vote for.

As far as voting for a third party candidate, it is of course a meaningless vote, made more meaningless by the likely outcome in my state. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no expectation on my part that Gary Johnson will win, or make much of a difference in the results of the election. Personally, I'd much rather throw away my vote than compromise my values.

---

No vote is meaningless. It's just a shame our process is so binary, making (R) or (D) votes more powerful in the electoral college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

For the record, I haven't endorsed any party. And I've certainly never painted any candidate or past president as a Saint, including Reagan (long held as Patron Saint of Republicans). :rolleyes:

---

You've got to be kidding me. You aren't fooling anyone - except maybe yourself.

Quote:

---

Yes, I have been more critical of the GOP because they've embraced/endorsed candidates (and a platform) that include bat shit insane religious zealots, xenophobes, homophobes, and military empire control freaks. They sold their soul to the Tea Party fringe, Grover Norquist, Bible thumpers, and Rovian tactics of divide and conquer. Their silence against the racists, sexists or birthers in their midst made them complicit in that kind of hate, and no amount of "fiscal responsibility" claims can outweigh that.

---

What you're really saying is this: "Of course I've been more critical of people who don't share my views, and less critical of those who do." Well professor, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

Don't pretend this discussion exists in a vacuum, GGT. We've got years of history, threads, and posts under our belts. Calling a spade a spade isn't a shot in the dark at this point. The only person who seems to be surprised by your political affiliations at this point is you.

Quote:

---

I'm tired of this kind of broad blanket stereo-type. It's the same crap we've heard for 5-6 years now -- when it was Obama vs McCain -- and anyone who didn't vote (R) was an automatic Obama fanboy, a closet sssocialist, un-American, un-patriotic, anti-freeedom, a deluded Hopey-Changey lib'rul who'd ruin enterprise and innovation, and turn our nation into a European Welfare State....and they just can't see Obama's flaws or faults. :donkey:

---

This isn't a broad blanket stereotype, it's history. It's the amalgamation of years of discussions, threads, and posts. You are probably the closest thing to a Democrat we have on these boards, period. I know it's fun to pretend you don't have a party affiliation, or that you aren't partisan, but that's as far removed from reality as you can get.

I can't help but remember how ']['ear always said he'd vote for McCain if he ever got the chance. You know, before McCain got the nomination. Sure it made for good television, but at best it's what you'd like to believe, and at worst it's a blatant lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You've got to be kidding me. You aren't fooling anyone - except maybe yourself.

What you're really saying is this: "Of course I've been more critical of people who don't share my views, and less critical of those who do." Well professor, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

Don't pretend this discussion exists in a vacuum, GGT. We've got years of history, threads, and posts under our belts. Calling a spade a spade isn't a shot in the dark at this point. The only person who seems to be surprised by your political affiliations at this point is you.

This isn't a broad blanket stereotype, it's history. It's the amalgamation of years of discussions, threads, and posts. You are probably the closest thing to a Democrat we have on these boards, period. I know it's fun to pretend you don't have a party affiliation, or that you aren't partisan, but that's as far removed from reality as you can get.

---

For some reason you've decided to vent your political frustrations and project them onto me. :donkey: I don't care what party label or "partisan" affiliation you assign me -- it doesn't matter any more than what (R) or (D) means these days. ie, not much. The only people still playing that game are certain politicians (and folks like you). Complaining about RINOs, Populists, Independents or even Libertarians who share some common values with any (D) means they're not party pure, or they're dishonest or delusional. :rolleyes:

That attitude helped make our electorate and governance so polarized, drawing imaginary lines in the sand, and causing real gridlock.

Quote:

---

I can't help but remember how ']['ear always said he'd vote for McCain if he ever got the chance. You know, before McCain got the nomination. Sure it made for good television, but at best it's what you'd like to believe, and at worst it's a blatant lie.

---

Dude, let it go. Tear hasn't been around for what, a couple of years? Now, if you're truly interested in what people here think....I look forward to your posts in D & D, where you challenge other opinions besides mine, and without the snark. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

For some reason you've decided to vent your political frustrations and project them onto me. :donkey: I don't care what party label or "partisan" affiliation you assign me -- it doesn't matter any more than what (R) or (D) means these days. ie, not much. The only people still playing that game are certain politicians (and folks like you). Complaining about RINOs, Populists, Independents or even Libertarians who share some common values with any (D) means they're not party pure, or they're dishonest or delusional. :rolleyes:

That attitude helped make our electorate and governance so polarized, drawing imaginary lines in the sand, and causing real gridlock.

---

To be honest, you're right. What you call yourself, or how you think of yourself doesn't really matter.

Quote:

---

Dude, let it go. Tear hasn't been around for what, a couple of years? Now, if you're truly interested in what people here think....I look forward to your posts in D & D, where you challenge other opinions besides mine, and without the snark. :up:

---

On the whole, I feel that other people are generally honest when it comes to their opinions. I don't get the same impression from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

To be honest, you're right. What you call yourself, or how you think of yourself doesn't really matter.

On the whole, I feel that other people are generally honest when it comes to their opinions. I don't get the same impression from you.

---

At least you finally admitted that you're not interested in others' opinions, or having a general discussion with others about their views. No, you've been baiting me, and laying it on pretty thick to boot. Instead of asking me why or where I've changed some of my views over the years, you'd rather accuse me of being dishonest, or unprincipled, and make digs at me personally. No idea why you do that, or what you gain...