U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Maleficus]

So...one thing led to another on that evil youtube (it sucks you in i tell ya) and i ended up getting a good little giggle out of this old video. I wonder if she is going to the poll for barry / plugs 2012? LOL...epic! (I wonder if Peggy has noticed any of this?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8...eature=related
"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car." http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gaso...-obama-184-385

"I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage" http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bell...QOAM3624L3K5PH

"If i help him, he's gonna help me." http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news...race/index.htm

Hang in there Peggy! He's promising change will come!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VMX...&feature=share

Guffaw!!!

[Slammin Shaman]

Rasmussen has Obama in the lead in terms of electoral votes with a 247 to 196 split, leaving 95 as a toss up.

Ah cool. Not only was I wrong, but I also spelled it wrong. Maybe I should check it more often/actually check how to spell it.

[Chrysia]

So...one thing led to another on that evil youtube (it sucks you in i tell ya) and i ended up getting a good little giggle out of this old video. I wonder if she is going to the poll for barry / plugs 2012? LOL...epic! (I wonder if Peggy has noticed any of this?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8...eature=related
"I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car." http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gaso...-obama-184-385

"I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage" http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bell...QOAM3624L3K5PH

"If i help him, he's gonna help me." http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news...race/index.htm

Hang in there Peggy! He's promising change will come!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VMX...&feature=share

Guffaw!!!

Ok, where do they get $1.84 a gallon for when Obama took office?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...-prices-1.html

EDIT: Nevermind, turns out they took a huge downturn in those 4 months.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...y-26-2009.html

It just proves that the prices fluctuate wildly, and it's hardly fair to put all the blame on Obama, when the first time we hit almost $4.00 a gallon was under Bush.

[Sunseeker]

Ok, where do they get $1.84 a gallon for when Obama took office?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...-prices-1.html

I was wondering the same. Gas was not that cheap in 2008. Maybe in 2001....

[Chrysia]

I was wondering the same. Gas was not that cheap in 2008. Maybe in 2001....

See my edit. It took a HUGE downturn there for a while. I recall it now. They haven't dipped near that low since.

[Slammin Shaman]

Ok, where do they get $1.84 a gallon for when Obama took office?

I would bust a nut if gas was $1.84 a gallon. Are gas prices even something the President has any kind of power over? People always complain about how it's President X's fault that gas is so expensive, but I don't think I've read anywhere that the President has any influence over that.

[Merkava]

I would bust a nut if gas was $1.84 a gallon. Are gas prices even something the President has any kind of power over? People always complain about how it's President X's fault that gas is so expensive, but I don't think I've read anywhere that the President has any influence over that.

Well, I mean if he nuked the Suez Canal, then gas prices would probably go up. But as far as lowering gas prices through energy or economic policies, probably not.

[Ausr]

I would bust a nut if gas was $1.84 a gallon. Are gas prices even something the President has any kind of power over? People always complain about how it's President X's fault that gas is so expensive, but I don't think I've read anywhere that the President has any influence over that.

Maybe minor influence if they announce something like a conflict or some crap like that but truthfully, it's all up to speculators and Big Oil themselves. Someone farted? Jack up the prices, bitches.

[oblivionx]

It just proves that the prices fluctuate wildly, and it's hardly fair to put all the blame on Obama, when the first time we hit almost $4.00 a gallon was under Bush.

Then why haven't they fluctuated wildly downward during Obama?

[Spectral]

We've already been over this. The violation was incredibly minor. The Obama campaign reimbursed the government for all her expenses and she met with ethics officials to discuss the issue. The head of the agency tasked with dealing with these things says they have over 100 incidents a year and they usually just result in short suspensions.

I do not consider the head of a putatively non-political office using her position to promote a politician to be incredibly minor. It's basic common sense that when acting in your official government capacity, you don't promote candidates. Everyone that works for the government knows this, everyone's been informed of it on many occasions, and yet Sebelius chose to just ignore the rules, and faced absolutely no consequence (unless you consider a meeting to be a consequence). I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by this; Sebelius isn't in that position because of any particular competence or knowledge she's ever exhibited, she's a purely political appointee, and it shouldn't be surprising when she acts like one.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 08:34 AM ----------

The democrat defenders , as usual, think it is not a big deal to break laws and then change things afterwards to make it so you don't break the law. Check the last few pages, the usual democrat defenders are doing their best to spin breaking the law.

I'm a registered Democrat, and I think I'm to the left of ~90-95% of Americans. My issue with Sebelius and her actions have nothing to do with political party.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 08:43 AM ----------

If the group responsible for dealing with violations of the Hatch Act has said that it is common for violators similar to Sebelius to get suspensions in lieu of getting fired, this is a non-issue.

I disagree; if the typical punishment is suspension, and she received nothing, that's an issue. Additionally, I think it's a bigger deal for a higher up, who legitimately has power and influence to break the rules than a low level employee that's unlikely to actually effect anything.

In my eyes, there are two important facts to consider: firstly being that the tax payer funds were reimbursed, eliminating the issue of using tax dollars to promote Obama, and secondly being the fact that they changed the intent of the meeting after the fact in order to skirt around the issue. The first fact, in my opinion, absolves her from the threat of termination.

I disagree; government travel (despite news stories to the contrary) is generally very tightly controlled. We don't get to just do whatever we please when travelling, up to and including breaking federal rules, and then just say, "don't worry, an external source that's buying political influence will cover the cost".

As such, a simple suspension, as is routine according to the agency in charge of prosecution, seems like a fitting punishment.

I have no strong opinion on what would be a good punishment. I do think the punishment shouldn't be nothing.

The application of non-partisan logic can show you that even people you disagree with don't deserve the worst. At no point in my deliberations here did I consider the fact that she is a Democrat or a supporter of Obama - neither of which I would relate to.

I'm a Democrat, her political affiliation doesn't move me at all. If there's any bias on my end, it'd be that I'd be even harsher on a Republican (I hope I wouldn't, but who knows).

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 08:47 AM ----------

You don't loose face by not rising to the occasion. Just saying.

This is an excellent point that's hard to keep in mind sometimes. No one that's reading ever thinks less of a guy/gal that just stops replying to someone that acts rudely.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 08:52 AM ----------

Ok, where do they get $1.84 a gallon for when Obama took office?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...-prices-1.html

EDIT: Nevermind, turns out they took a huge downturn in those 4 months.

Well, a spectacular economic downturn and sharp drop in world demand will do that for you! This is why I find people's fantasy of returning to $2 gas so odd - if that happens, it's because the economy's completely in the tank.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 08:53 AM ----------

Then why haven't they fluctuated wildly downward during Obama?

Because national and international economies have been growing for nearly all of Obama's Presidency.

Note: This does not imply anything about Obama's abilities one way or the other.

[belfpala]

So Why is Ryan feeling the need to run for an 8th term in the House while running as VP also? I think that sends a pretty strong msg that the hope they have is weak and he expects no change.

In case they lose the presidential election. Biden ran for, and won, another term in congress at the same time he won the vice presidency. He even swore in as senator, then resigned, so his Governor could appoint his replacement.

[oblivionx]

In case they lose the presidential election. Biden ran for, and won, another term in congress at the same time he won the vice presidency. He even swore in as senator, then resigned, so his Governor could appoint his replacement.

Only politician that I recall actually resigned or not running again while running for president was Dole.

[stumpy]

One hand washes the other. Report, Report, Pm Sunshine.


So Why is Ryan feeling the need to run for an 8th term in the House while running as VP also? I think that sends a pretty strong msg that the hope they have is weak and he expects no change.

I think Wisconsin law actually requires him to do so.

[belfpala]

I think Wisconsin law actually requires him to do so.

Regardless, political realities also require him to.

You (generic you) don't want to lose him in congress should the Romney/Ryan ticket fail.

[Felya]

Regardless, political realities also require him to.

You (generic you) don't want to lose him in congress should the Romney/Ryan ticket fail.

Unless you (also generic) can show how it negatively effects his job, I don't see a problem with it. I don't live in a state that elects him for congress, if they don't mind, I don't see why I should.

I rather not quit my current job, until I have the better one. Why take a risk, when you don't have to. As anti Ryan as I am, this is not something I see as wrong. In contrast, I do rail on Ron Paul for missing the last vote for the NDAA because of campaigning. But, that's because he gave long winded speaches against it on the very campaign he chose to bolster instead of voting. When Ryan does something like that, I'll change my tune.

[belfpala]

Yeah I'm not trying to make an issue out of it. Biden did it too, as I said.

And that's how it works in the real world. You keep doing your current job even when looking for an upgrade.

[Wells]

I do not consider the head of a putatively non-political office using her position to promote a politician to be incredibly minor. It's basic common sense that when acting in your official government capacity, you don't promote candidates. Everyone that works for the government knows this, everyone's been informed of it on many occasions, and yet Sebelius chose to just ignore the rules, and faced absolutely no consequence (unless you consider a meeting to be a consequence). I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by this; Sebelius isn't in that position because of any particular competence or knowledge she's ever exhibited, she's a purely political appointee, and it shouldn't be surprising when she acts like one.

It happens roughly 100 times a year and the violation was based off of literally a sentence fragment.

[Spectral]

It happens roughly 100 times a year and the violation was based off of literally a sentence fragment.

I realize that this is your reply, as you already stated it. As I stated, I do not consider a situation where a lower level employee is suspended equivalent to a situation where the fairly powerful head of the HHS faces absolutely no consequences whatsoever. It's unacceptable behavior from Sebelius, yet nothing happens to her, while a lower level employee would lose income in the short run and have a black mark on their record in the long run.

[Grizzly Willy]

I realize that this is your reply, as you already stated it. As I stated, I do not consider a situation where a lower level employee is suspended equivalent to a situation where the fairly powerful head of the HHS faces absolutely no consequences whatsoever. It's unacceptable behavior from Sebelius, yet nothing happens to her, while a lower level employee would lose income in the short run and have a black mark on their record in the long run.

I agree with this. My knowledge of the subject was that people were complaining about her not getting fired, not about her not receiving any punishment whatsoever. If it's normal for people who violate the Hatch Act to be reprimanded with a suspension as the most lenient form of punishment, then that is what I expect to happen. If nothing is being done, then there is a problem.

[Chrysia]

I agree with this. My knowledge of the subject was that people were complaining about her not getting fired, not about her not receiving any punishment whatsoever. If it's normal for people who violate the Hatch Act to be reprimanded with a suspension as the most lenient form of punishment, then that is what I expect to happen. If nothing is being done, then there is a problem.

Ok, apparently they've "reached an accord" with Sebelius. She went to ethics training, the money was reimbursed, and they're considering it closed. Goddamnit, why do both political parties make me hate them so?