Democratic National Convention 2012

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.

[NC_Skins]

Fighting forward together: the clichés of the Democratic convention - Yahoo! News

Decent article.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Bent under pressure.

Should be interesting to see what they threw together.

Just saw a replay of the voice vote to ammend the Dem platform....what a mess. It sure sounded like a 50/50 split and then booos when it was passed.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I think the 2 party system is broken. It'd be nice to see independents, the green party and libertarians actually have a leg to stand on.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Good lord, somebody time stamp this post. I agreed with literally, almost, everything you wrote.

Did someone hack your account? You're right both sides need to grow up a little bit and put some skin in the game.

LOL ! Until both parties grow spines and go to there base/s and say , we are sorry but we have less $$$$ for you , we will keep running around in circles . I almost wish we had zero political parties and politicians focused on what is best for the country , period .

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.

Sandra Fluke was a tad off putting. Tossed out some red meat to the crowd. Not too bad.

Bill Clinton hit out of the park and into the next state. It was a brilliant speech from start to finish. That's what people will remember. Obama has to close the deal tonight.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Just a thought, and someone correct me if I missed something, but if I'm running the DNC I'm not trotting out Sandra Fluke. What the heck are her credentials? Why not Mark Warner leading up to Clinton tonight. It would help with Independents and bring more cred to the Dems supporting business.

EDIT: Fluke's speech came off as very angry and will do more to hurt the Dems than help. Especially when the GOP puts the truth about her out into the mainstream. She isn't an innocent law student, but a 30 yr. old "reproductive rights activist" (pro-abortion advocate) that came to Georgetown knowing their policy on insurance and contraceptives yet came specifically to challenge their position.

Meet Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post

From the link: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

This is complete BS as is the HHS Mandate. As I've said many times before the HHS Mandate isn't about denying women access to contraception, it's about the gov't not being able to force a religious institution to violate its deeply held religious beliefs.

I dunno much about Fluke but I thought Cecile Richards got the whole, "women deserve to choose about their own health issues" point without trotting Fluke out there.

But I suppose it could've been worse. I don't think it's necessarily going to "hurt" the democrats but she probably didn't help them much. Although this was probably to drive home the need of birth control to people already within the party. But then again it was Clinton who was supposed to appeal to indepdendents and the fence sitters, not Fluke. She's a drop of water in the ocean.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Bill Clinton hit out of the park and into the next state. It was a brilliant speech from start to finish. That's what people will remember. Obama has to close the deal tonight.

Clinton is the most masterful politician of our age. Reagan was close, but Clinton could sell a bag of $hit to a manure company.

That being said, same old/same old D arguments and talking points (tax breaks for millionaires, grandma over the cliff, blah, blah, blah) but Clinton delivers them more effectively than anyone. I don't see any way Obama will be able to top that.

Side note, I know he's getting older but I noticed his hands shaking a bit and at one point I think he noticed it himself and put his right hand down to his side. I hope he isn't struggling with a health issue he's keeping private.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Now, that is something relevant to my interests. I know that Democrats tend to harp on the tax breaks for the wealthy and tax increase for the middle class. Is this true? If so, does anyone have any websites or facts to back that up?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Bent under pressure.

Should be interesting to see what they threw together.

This is what they threw together. WTF and you guys joked about Clint E. sorry I missed this live. I'd say it was about a 50/50 vote and they even bood adding it. My question is if they had to add god to the platform does that mean they actually voted to not have god at the convention? LMAO

Amidst Boos And Multiple Votes, DNC Reverses...

[mooby]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Agreed. People get so wrapped up in being part of a single party that they don't even think of the facts (not that either group does what they say). I've had to de-friend at least a dozen friends on Facebook this year because of random garbage posting that has no bearing on what this country needs to care about.

I don't care how you feel about abortion/gun control/the rest/etc. etc. etc. etc. I want to know what your party is going to do for me and my family. Those issues and that debate aren't going to matter to me.

This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mooby

This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.

I've voted across party lines in State elections. In Va. alot Dems would be considered a Rep. in other states. We are pretty much a conservative state and that's why we are running on a surplus.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by mooby

This. It's why I'm still pondering whether or not to vote this year. The prudent thing to do would be to study all the issues, find out each candidate's stance on the issues, and vote based on which candidate has better ideas to fix the issues, and yet, somehow I feel it won't matter, simply because the key ingredient to resolving these issues is having both parties work together in Congress, and I don't see that happening.

Exactly. And in the meantime, we can just listen to both sides go back and forth on abortion or gun control when we have MUCH more pressing issues that never seem to even be mentioned.

[los panda]

when i registered to vote, i had to choose a party.
are you still unable to vote unless you claim a party?

if so, why?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Now, that is something relevant to my interests. I know that Democrats tend to harp on the tax breaks for the wealthy and tax increase for the middle class. Is this true? If so, does anyone have any websites or facts to back that up?

FactCheck.org : Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise

The TPC’s detailed calculations showed that — before any reduction of tax deductions — Romney’s plan would result in 99.97 percent of those making $1 million a year or more getting a tax cut (compared with what they pay now) and that the cuts would average $256,603 each. But further down the income scale, the benefit would be considerably less. For those making between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, 94 percent would see a tax cut, and it would average $1,226, before any loss of deductions or credits. These cuts are all in addition to those enacted during the Bush administration, and Romney would not allow those to expire as scheduled.

The Romney campaign insists that economic growth will somehow make its tax plan work as promised, but we’ve seen nothing to support that. Romney’s experts predict about a 1 percent increase in growth. Looney, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, calls that “an implausibly large estimate,” but nevertheless ran the study again assuming that growth rate and an additional 12 million jobs. The result, he told ABC News, is that it would offset only about 15 percent of Romney’s revenue loss from individual tax cuts.

“Even in that case, there’s still a shift in the tax burden from high-income taxpayers to low- and or middle-income taxpayers,” Looney told ABC News. “It’s smaller, but it would require a net tax increase on the middle class.”

So basically, it will end up with the middle class having a increase on their taxes (due to deductions being closed ...mort interests, etc) while the rich get a 250k tax break. For Romney to be such a great business man, his numbers have never added up.