2012 US Presidential Election.

[pilferk]

I have zero confidence in Barack. ZERO. Most of you write off Romney, but don't you also find people like Biden, Janet Nopalitano, and Eric Holder to be less than stellar as well?  This Holder guy has been controversial since day one. And what is up with Fast and Furious?  Also, Binden makes Palin look like a rocket scientist.

My confidence in Obama has waned.  I feel he's broken some important promises...some on policy, many on principal...and taken up the "politics as usual" banner that he tried to burn during the '08 campaign.  Some of that is the Repubs obstructionism, some of it is the people he's surrounded himself with. Which is another of my gripes about this administration....

He has certainly done some good things.  And some not so good things.

Having said that: I have less confidence in Romney.  His economic policy is, essentially, a return to what Bush II was doing.  His views (and Ryan's views) on Medicare are so terrible, they give new meaning to the word.  And the people he's surrounding himself with, by the looks of things, make Obama's choices look fantastic by comparison.

As I said before,I'll likely vote independant.  I feel like we're back to Bush II vs Gore.  Not a good choice between the two.  Given I'm in CT..and there's no way we'll give our electorals to anyone other than a Dem...it won't much matter.  But maybe my vote gets one of the indie parties some more cash next time.

Oh, and NOBODY makes Palin look like a rocket scientist. Nobody.

I agree: Biden is rough around the edges and opens his mouth and inserts foot a bit too often. But..honestly...the guy is smart.  And I actually prefer some of his more blunt moments over the crap that comes from the stump of both presidential candidates and the other vp candidate.  Not the over the top hyperbole (Shackles? Really?  You (and your speech writer) couldn't think of a better metaphor?).  But some of his straighter shooting ("This is a big fucking deal!"? Classic!).

He's also good for the ticket.  Because unlike Romney's double down on technocrat geekery....Biden comes across as an everyman.  A guy who says what's on his mind.  And he has BROAD appeal in some parts of Appalachia.

[pilferk]

Pillf, you make a good point about unions too. A prime example of what you mean is the unions for the post office. My dad has worked for the post office for over 30 years now and their union has turned into just total crap.

SOME of them are quite good.  My mother was part of a union for the better part of 30 years.  She was a state employee. She's been retired for about 6 years, now...so I'm not as plugged in as I used to be.   However, I've heard it's gotten a bit more "contentious" since the new Governor came in (who, incidentally, is a democrat.....and he has just STUNK at running our state).

The union had no issues with giving the state back things when they needed to.  The state and her union actually had a pretty good relationship.  No strikes, reasonable negotiations, etc.  When things were bad, the employees agreed to wage freezes, mandatory unpaid days off, etc.  When they were good, the state gave reasonable (and some times retro) raises, good insurance, and reasonable benefits.  Both sides worked to minimize/eliminate layoffs.

When an employee fucked up, the union did what they should do: Acted as an advocate, but was willing to let the employee get canned when it was warranted.  She worked in an educational setting..and even tenure wasn't the holy grail that it is in other places.  It means they couldn't can you for no reason...but "cause" (like being incompetent or unable to do your job) wasn't off limits.

The problem is: Many unions, and certainly many of the larger unions, just don't act like that any more.  It's about continuously pushing for higher wages (and screw benefits) so they can raise dues.  It's about maintaining and expanding their membership so they can raise more dues.  It's not about "fair" wages within the confines of the business, and what it can afford.  It's about bleeding every dollar out of that business so they can, in turn, bleed some % of those dollars out of their membership.

Basically, they're run just like a corporation.  So now you have 2 giant corporations negotiating over the cattle, to see who gets the biggest piece of the roast.

I believe unions...REAL unions (like "Norma Rae" unions)..have a place in the labor force.  But not the way the NLRB has let them develop and run roughshod.

The question is: How do you let the good ones operate, and tear the lousy ones apart so they're not a part of the problem.  I'm not sure that Wisconsin got it right with their bent.  But I'm not sure California does, either.

[Sober_times]

I think unions have their issues and need to be reformed somehow. But I don't think they are a main issue with the economy anymore like the republicans say. Their always bad mouthing unions and how they ruin the economy. With private membership of unions at only 7.6% of private sector employment ,its hard for me to believe they are an issue.

[pilferk]

I think unions have their issues and need to be reformed somehow. But I don't think they are a main issue with the economy anymore like the republicans say. Their always bad mouthing unions and how they ruin the economy. With private membership of unions at only 7.6% of private sector employment ,its hard for me to believe they are an issue.

I agree they are not THE issue.  Not remotely the largest issue, for sure.

They are AN issue, though. Not all unions, to be clear, are even AN issue. But...common theme...the bad ones are the ones that are representative.

I also agree they've been a Repub target for a long time.  The thing is:  They've now given the Repubs an opening so they're going to hammer away at it.  That's Repub SOP.

[tim_m]

One big issue with me is immigration. I am all about the hardworking Mexicans and South Americans/Cental Americans getting visas and being able to stay here. Let's get tax off them vs running them out. They are the only cheap labor force we have left. They run our service industry, construction, etc. I work with them daily. They do the shit the whites and blacks won't do for $10 per hour.  I am ready for them maybe not to be citizens, but be allowed to pay taxes as long as they don't start trouble, which most of them don't.

I agree completely, i'm all for people wanting to come here for a better life. Hell at some point almost every american immigrated here from somewhere. I just want them to be here legally.

[tim_m]

Pillf, you make a good point about unions too. A prime example of what you mean is the unions for the post office. My dad has worked for the post office for over 30 years now and their union has turned into just total crap.

SOME of them are quite good.  My mother was part of a union for the better part of 30 years.  She was a state employee. She's been retired for about 6 years, now...so I'm not as plugged in as I used to be.   However, I've heard it's gotten a bit more "contentious" since the new Governor came in (who, incidentally, is a democrat.....and he has just STUNK at running our state).

The union had no issues with giving the state back things when they needed to.  The state and her union actually had a pretty good relationship.  No strikes, reasonable negotiations, etc.  When things were bad, the employees agreed to wage freezes, mandatory unpaid days off, etc.  When they were good, the state gave reasonable (and some times retro) raises, good insurance, and reasonable benefits.  Both sides worked to minimize/eliminate layoffs.

When an employee fucked up, the union did what they should do: Acted as an advocate, but was willing to let the employee get canned when it was warranted.  She worked in an educational setting..and even tenure wasn't the holy grail that it is in other places.  It means they couldn't can you for no reason...but "cause" (like being incompetent or unable to do your job) wasn't off limits.

The problem is: Many unions, and certainly many of the larger unions, just don't act like that any more.  It's about continuously pushing for higher wages (and screw benefits) so they can raise dues.  It's about maintaining and expanding their membership so they can raise more dues.  It's not about "fair" wages within the confines of the business, and what it can afford.  It's about bleeding every dollar out of that business so they can, in turn, bleed some % of those dollars out of their membership.

Basically, they're run just like a corporation.  So now you have 2 giant corporations negotiating over the cattle, to see who gets the biggest piece of the roast.

I believe unions...REAL unions (like "Norma Rae" unions)..have a place in the labor force.  But not the way the NLRB has let them develop and run roughshod.

The question is: How do you let the good ones operate, and tear the lousy ones apart so they're not a part of the problem.  I'm not sure that Wisconsin got it right with their bent.  But I'm not sure California does, either.

Here in Texas the postal workers union is just bad. My dad has told so many stories about people he works with that break rules, don't do their jobs etc. Get fired but because of the union get their jobs back. There's this one guy Andrew, he has been fired and re hired so many times. On another note, i think something that would really help this economy is, if employers would get rid of these lazy bastards who are only there to collect a paycheck and not do their jobs. If we got rid of these people and hired people who are interested in actually doing the job they are paid for the economy would be so much better. Production would be up. Sales would be up because people would be more inclined to use businesses that have employees who actually do their jobs..

[Axl4Prez2004]

Yo Smoking Guns, you mentioned Biden makes Palin look like a rocket scientist?  Sorry, check out Joe's academic credentials...then check out Sarah palin's for God's sake.  What did she do, float around 3 schools or so?  B's and C's I think?  So many bright, intelligent women out there, and palin was tapped for a VP spot.  Yikes.

Yes, Joe shoots from the hip...he's a W.-like quote machine...but he did outperform Sarah in the Veep debate in '08.

btw Pilferk, no doubt most folks receiving food stamps are not cheating the system...I just feel like changes could be made to the program (and it's enforcement)

one more general issue I will take Obama over Romney on and that's foreign policy.  Obama has used force at the right time, he's drawn down forces appropriately, he's maintained drone attacks keeping Al Qaeda on the run.  Romney really does strike me as a "you're either with us or against us" W-style potential president.

[tim_m]

Even my 9 year old niece couldn't make Palin look like a rocket scientist.

[Smoking Guns]

I am ready for the war to be over as Obama promised.

[Sober_times]

Yo Smoking Guns, you mentioned Biden makes Palin look like a rocket scientist?  Sorry, check out Joe's academic credentials...then check out Sarah palin's for God's sake.  What did she do, float around 3 schools or so?  B's and C's I think?  So many bright, intelligent women out there, and palin was tapped for a VP spot.  Yikes.

Yes, Joe shoots from the hip...he's a W.-like quote machine...but he did outperform Sarah in the Veep debate in '08.

Im not a huge Joe Biden fan, that being said...

Joe is right. Joe is right. Joe is right.

This was a campaign slogan for Joe Biden because his opponents said it so much during debates with him. He is known for his good debating skills and has been credited with presenting good arguments for and against stuff in the senate. His off the cuff remarks have helped him as much as they've hindered him. He has used them well and over the years it has taken more people in than it has alienated. I really think his debate against Ryan will be entertaining(I think he is going to slam Ryan on a lot of stuff and Ryan will get his licks in to). Even though the debate format needs work(like almost everything else), I still enjoy them and I am looking forward to the VP Debate more than the Presidentials this year. Which is unusual for me. 

[Sober_times]

I am ready for the war to be over as Obama promised.

Your not the only one. I really wish the war in Afghanistan would be more topical. Unfortunately that isn't a topic. I blame both candidates and media for this. Media is horrible. I won't get started on my feelings with corporate media, just makes me upset thinking about it.

I also am upset Obama hasn't done more gun control and that it hasn't really been championed by any mainstream democrat in a long time. Or been part of the broad conversation. I don't think whether or not we should have gun control should be the topic. It needs to be what kind of gun control.

I don't like that Obama abandoned the public option in healthcare. I want a public option.

I don't like that he continually rolls over for the other party. I really wish he would show more balls while being President Obama. That guy has no balls. However, Campaign Obama has big brass balls. Carry that over man. I blame him being naive on understanding how the Office worked before becoming president and having so many Clinton people around him. Clinton rolled over for the republican party as president,  at times. Compromised a lot but he also rolled over by backing down on some democratic ideals and just siding with republicans without true compromise. As president, your both leader of the Nation and the party that got you there. Clinton did his party no favors at times. Let's just say I don't champion Clinton as this great democrat president. It is like Obama has tried this course of action and I don't like it. Especially in this political climate.


All that being said, I still think he'll be waaaaaay better than General Republican Candidate. Oops, I mean Mitt Romney.

[Sober_times]

Pillf, you make a good point about unions too. A prime example of what you mean is the unions for the post office. My dad has worked for the post office for over 30 years now and their union has turned into just total crap.

SOME of them are quite good.  My mother was part of a union for the better part of 30 years.  She was a state employee. She's been retired for about 6 years, now...so I'm not as plugged in as I used to be.   However, I've heard it's gotten a bit more "contentious" since the new Governor came in (who, incidentally, is a democrat.....and he has just STUNK at running our state).

The union had no issues with giving the state back things when they needed to.  The state and her union actually had a pretty good relationship.  No strikes, reasonable negotiations, etc.  When things were bad, the employees agreed to wage freezes, mandatory unpaid days off, etc.  When they were good, the state gave reasonable (and some times retro) raises, good insurance, and reasonable benefits.  Both sides worked to minimize/eliminate layoffs.

When an employee fucked up, the union did what they should do: Acted as an advocate, but was willing to let the employee get canned when it was warranted.  She worked in an educational setting..and even tenure wasn't the holy grail that it is in other places.  It means they couldn't can you for no reason...but "cause" (like being incompetent or unable to do your job) wasn't off limits.

The problem is: Many unions, and certainly many of the larger unions, just don't act like that any more.  It's about continuously pushing for higher wages (and screw benefits) so they can raise dues.  It's about maintaining and expanding their membership so they can raise more dues.  It's not about "fair" wages within the confines of the business, and what it can afford.  It's about bleeding every dollar out of that business so they can, in turn, bleed some % of those dollars out of their membership.

Basically, they're run just like a corporation.  So now you have 2 giant corporations negotiating over the cattle, to see who gets the biggest piece of the roast.

I believe unions...REAL unions (like "Norma Rae" unions)..have a place in the labor force.  But not the way the NLRB has let them develop and run roughshod.

The question is: How do you let the good ones operate, and tear the lousy ones apart so they're not a part of the problem.  I'm not sure that Wisconsin got it right with their bent.  But I'm not sure California does, either.

Here in Texas the postal workers union is just bad. My dad has told so many stories about people he works with that break rules, don't do their jobs etc. Get fired but because of the union get their jobs back. There's this one guy Andrew, he has been fired and re hired so many times. On another note, i think something that would really help this economy is, if employers would get rid of these lazy bastards who are only there to collect a paycheck and not do their jobs. If we got rid of these people and hired people who are interested in actually doing the job they are paid for the economy would be so much better. Production would be up. Sales would be up because people would be more inclined to use businesses that have employees who actually do their jobs..

My brother-in-law works for the Post Office and has those same complaints. He always follows it up by saying he's better off with them than without them. I understand not all agree with that. I worked as part of the Communication's Workers of America Union when I worked for an SBC Call Center in my early 20's. I liked being in that Union. We got high pay, low dues, and great benefits. People who didn't do their job well were fired and part of the negotiations for SBC was attendance policy. The Union was no help to you if you didn't show up to work without a really good excuse. A lot of people complained because of that but I liked it. Personal responsibility should be part of it. While I was there at least. I don't know how it is now. I think that good experience shaped my opinion of unions. I know they are all not good. And may not work good with one company as they do with another. My personal experience was a good one and that is most likely why I support unions. My grandfather had a negate experience, very negative and hates them. My sister also had a negative experience and hates them as well. So I do think personal experience, or hearing of personal experience from family or close friends has a lot to do with it.

[tim_m]

Pillf, you make a good point about unions too. A prime example of what you mean is the unions for the post office. My dad has worked for the post office for over 30 years now and their union has turned into just total crap.

SOME of them are quite good.  My mother was part of a union for the better part of 30 years.  She was a state employee. She's been retired for about 6 years, now...so I'm not as plugged in as I used to be.   However, I've heard it's gotten a bit more "contentious" since the new Governor came in (who, incidentally, is a democrat.....and he has just STUNK at running our state).

The union had no issues with giving the state back things when they needed to.  The state and her union actually had a pretty good relationship.  No strikes, reasonable negotiations, etc.  When things were bad, the employees agreed to wage freezes, mandatory unpaid days off, etc.  When they were good, the state gave reasonable (and some times retro) raises, good insurance, and reasonable benefits.  Both sides worked to minimize/eliminate layoffs.

When an employee fucked up, the union did what they should do: Acted as an advocate, but was willing to let the employee get canned when it was warranted.  She worked in an educational setting..and even tenure wasn't the holy grail that it is in other places.  It means they couldn't can you for no reason...but "cause" (like being incompetent or unable to do your job) wasn't off limits.

The problem is: Many unions, and certainly many of the larger unions, just don't act like that any more.  It's about continuously pushing for higher wages (and screw benefits) so they can raise dues.  It's about maintaining and expanding their membership so they can raise more dues.  It's not about "fair" wages within the confines of the business, and what it can afford.  It's about bleeding every dollar out of that business so they can, in turn, bleed some % of those dollars out of their membership.

Basically, they're run just like a corporation.  So now you have 2 giant corporations negotiating over the cattle, to see who gets the biggest piece of the roast.

I believe unions...REAL unions (like "Norma Rae" unions)..have a place in the labor force.  But not the way the NLRB has let them develop and run roughshod.

The question is: How do you let the good ones operate, and tear the lousy ones apart so they're not a part of the problem.  I'm not sure that Wisconsin got it right with their bent.  But I'm not sure California does, either.

Here in Texas the postal workers union is just bad. My dad has told so many stories about people he works with that break rules, don't do their jobs etc. Get fired but because of the union get their jobs back. There's this one guy Andrew, he has been fired and re hired so many times. On another note, i think something that would really help this economy is, if employers would get rid of these lazy bastards who are only there to collect a paycheck and not do their jobs. If we got rid of these people and hired people who are interested in actually doing the job they are paid for the economy would be so much better. Production would be up. Sales would be up because people would be more inclined to use businesses that have employees who actually do their jobs..

My brother-in-law works for the Post Office and has those same complaints. He always follows it up by saying he's better off with them than without them. I understand not all agree with that. I worked as part of the Communication's Workers of America Union when I worked for an SBC Call Center in my early 20's. I liked being in that Union. We got high pay, low dues, and great benefits. People who didn't do their job well were fired and part of the negotiations for SBC was attendance policy. The Union was no help to you if you didn't show up to work without a really good excuse. A lot of people complained because of that but I liked it. Personal responsibility should be part of it. While I was there at least. I don't know how it is now. I think that good experience shaped my opinion of unions. I know they are all not good. And may not work good with one company as they do with another. My personal experience was a good one and that is most likely why I support unions. My grandfather had a negate experience, very negative and hates them. My sister also had a negative experience and hates them as well. So I do think personal experience, or hearing of personal experience from family or close friends has a lot to do with it.

I just don't feel you should get your job back countless times for not doing your job, insubordination etc.

[Smoking Guns]

Condi Rice is a class act!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Condi Rice is a class act!

Yep. What she said about education is spot on.

[pilferk]

I am ready for the war to be over as Obama promised.

Afghan war, I assume?

To be fair, he promised the troops would be out by 2014.  They're on pace for exactly that.

The fighting won't end until they're gone...timetable or not.

[pilferk]

Condi Rice is a class act!

She really is.  She's a real brightspot on the conservative side.

Unfortunately (for them, and for the rest of us), I don't think she's electable because of her time with Bush II.  I'd probably vote for her.

Ryan, on the other hand....

I get that the VP often gives the "red meat" speech (which, this time, should have been given by Christie, IMHO), but I would have preferred he stick a little closer to the truth.

Here's a look at just SOME of the issues:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

And for his speechwriters to then comment "We will not be dictated to by factcheckers" is, quite frankly, deplorable.

Not that the dems will probably be any better at their convention.....

[tim_m]

Condi Rice is a class act!

She really is.  She's a real brightspot on the conservative side.

Unfortunately (for them, and for the rest of us), I don't think she's electable because of her time with Bush II.  I'd probably vote for her.

Ryan, on the other hand....

I get that the VP often gives the "red meat" speech (which, this time, should have been given by Christie, IMHO), but I would have preferred he stick a little closer to the truth.

Here's a look at just SOME of the issues:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

And for his speechwriters to then comment "We will not be dictated to by factcheckers" is, quite frankly, deplorable.

Not that the dems will probably be any better at their convention.....

A little closer to the truth, you mean he actually told the truth about something?

[Sober_times]

Condi is decent but I wouldn't vote for her.

I found the conventions entertaining in a comedic way. I loved all the we built that stuff. It was quite funny that a whole night of convention coverage was based off something Obama said that was twisted to mean something else.

Stewart on The Daily Show had a great segment revolving around the we built that stuff. Hilarious. In fact the show this week has been quite entertaining. I can't wait till next week. Because he will definitely get them in a way too. I loved the the barrack obama he completes us video in 08. Great stuff: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-28-2008/barack-obama--he-completes-us

I also love the Obama camps response to the Clint Eastwood ramble..err..speech. "Referring all questions on this to Salvador Dal?," spokesman Ben LaBolt said by email. 

[tim_m]

Clint Eastwood sounded like a nutcase.