The new and improved, fight-free Romney vs. Obama thread!

Armchair_QB · Jul 11, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Zeke12 said:

Your concern is noted, though I can't for the life of me remember when Attorney General became a non-partisan position.
Click to expand...

What previous Attorney Generals gave political speeches?

The Justice Department is supposed to be free fro the influence of politics. Shouldn't the Attorney General therefor stay out of partisan politics?
Click to expand...

When you're a stooge you do what the boss says.

doctorquant · Jul 11, 2012

YF ... meh, you're confusing the lower levels of a given agency with the political head of it. All Cabinet-level officials (i.e.., the titular heads of the agencies) are partisan ... nature of the beast.

YankeeFan · Dec 15, 2014

Zeke likes to talk about shifting demographics changing the electorate in a way that benefits the Democrats.

But, maybe more than race, I wonder if this will help Dems more:

President Obama's slim lead over Republican rival Mitt Romney in the White House race is fueled by a broad marriage gap, with Obama enjoying a big advantage among single voters -- particularly women, a Quinnipiac University poll found on Wednesday.

Obama leads among single voters by 54 percent to 34 percent, while married voters back Romney 51 percent to 38 percent, the poll found.

Obama has a huge advantage with single women, 60 percent to 31 percent, while Romney leads among married women 49 percent to 42 percent.

Romney leads by 19 percentage points among married men, and Obama leads by 9 points among single men.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/election/marriage_gap_fuels_obama_lead_over_kFoZhlwfltZ4ZcCiKYgEHJ#ixzz20KYU1H5j
Click to expand...

As living single becomes more and more popular:

The contrast emerges clearly in Eric Klinenberg’s new book, Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. And it matters because the people in question are hardly a negligible demographic. Though they may not realize it, they’re part of a major societal shift. In 1950, Klinenberg reports, 4 million American adults lived alone, which accounted for 9 percent of households. Today, that number is 31 million, a whopping 28 percent of all households.

Klinenberg, an NYU sociologist, traces the development of a diverse, rapidly growing cohort. Sixty years ago, the typical solo dweller was a migrant male laborer out West in a transitional phase. Now, there are several main species in the genus. For young urbanites, it has become a rite of passage to leave behind the Craigslist roommates and sign a lease of one’s own. Divorce rates have soared since 1950, leaving many middle-aged people solitary. Then there are elders who survive their spouses and insist on maintaining their autonomy. Today, “singletons,” as Klinenberg calls his subjects, are more likely to live in Manhattan than Montana, and the majority are women—17 million, compared with 14 million men. (This imbalance owes at least in part to women’s longevity: More of them outlive their husbands than vice versa. Klinenberg doesn’t furnish other reasons.)

The nature of living alone has changed thoroughly over the past century, in ways that make social connections essential. At one time, it was an opportunity for reclusiveness. Religious ascetics and misfits like Thoreau fled human company to commune with God or nature; otherwise, people of all ages tended to lived with family. For women in the early 1900s, living independently was particularly rare.

But modern conditions make it possible to combine an active social and romantic life with the option to retreat to a solitary haven. When you can step outside your door and find three cafes, five bars, and streets teeming with acquaintances and intriguing strangers, living alone is no sentence to solitude. Still less so when, from your kitchen table, you can chat, text, email, or Skype with remote confidants. Meanwhile, women are no longer barred by custom or financial dependence from setting up house on their own. What’s more, sex is not contingent on marriage—and Americans face less pressure both to enter and to remain in wedlock. Klinenberg convincingly argues that the convergence of mass urbanization, communications technology, and liberalized attitudes has driven this trend.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/eric_klinenberg_s_going_solo_the_extraordinary_rise_and_surprising_appeal_of_living_alone_are_women_better_at_living_alone_.html
Click to expand...

bigpern23 · Jul 11, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

Poll taxes?

The 24th Amendment made them unconstitutional.

I have no doubt he'll try to make a populist speech about poll taxes, probably calling the attempts at voter ID laws a "poll tax."

And it might work in front of a front of an audience that should be frightened by the prospect of poll taxes. But as attorney general he has never (and never will) walked into court and alleged the laws (which he opposes) are a violation of the 24th amendment.

It would actually be refreshing -- just thinking about this after reading your post -- if Romney got up there and said that the sitting attorney general of the United States shouldn't lie about the law to try to frighten a special interest into voting for his political party.
Click to expand...

Honest question because I don't know the answer: Do the proposed voter IDs cost money they way a driver's license does?

Zeke12 · Jul 11, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Zeke12 said:

Your concern is noted, though I can't for the life of me remember when Attorney General became a non-partisan position.
Click to expand...

What previous Attorney Generals gave political speeches?

The Justice Department is supposed to be free fro the influence of politics. Shouldn't the Attorney General therefor stay out of partisan politics?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Go back and look at John Ashcroft's calendar from the summer and fall of 2004.

It's amazing to me how some people internalize the ethos of their chosen candidate.

Barack Obama is campaigning for office? The nerve!

Attorney General is a political appointment. Always has been. Welcome to the world.

YankeeFan · Jul 11, 2012

doctorquant said:

YF ... meh, you're confusing the lower levels of a given agency with the political head of it. All Cabinet-level officials (i.e.., the titular heads of the agencies) are partisan ... nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Traditionally, the Attorney General, and Secretary of State avoid politics.

Zeke12 · Jul 11, 2012

The Big Ragu said:

Poll taxes?

The 24th Amendment made them unconstitutional.

I have no doubt he'll try to make a populist speech about poll taxes, probably calling the attempts at voter ID laws a "poll tax."

And it might work in front of a front of an audience that should be frightened by the prospect of poll taxes. But as attorney general he has never (and never will) walked into court and alleged the laws (which he opposes) are a violation of the 24th amendment.
Click to expand...

Largely because it's an easier legal hurdle to make an equal protection case than it is to make a poll tax case.

Doesn't make the laws in question not poll taxes -- and I note you didn't argue they weren't, either. Which is good. Because they are.

YankeeFan · Jul 11, 2012

Zeke12 said:

Seriously? Go back and look at John Ashcroft's calendar from the summer and fall of 2004.
Click to expand...

Ashcroft gave political speeches? Link?

And, assuming he did, was he criticized for it?

The guy couldn't talk about our terrorist threat -- in the aftermath of 9/11 -- without being accused of being political.

Holder goes to the NAACP to rile up the base, and that's fine though, right?

Talk about hypocrisy.

dixiehack · Jul 11, 2012

IDs for those who can't drive and can't afford them are provided free.

doctorquant · Jul 11, 2012

Zeke12 said:

The Big Ragu said:

Poll taxes?

The 24th Amendment made them unconstitutional.

I have no doubt he'll try to make a populist speech about poll taxes, probably calling the attempts at voter ID laws a "poll tax."

And it might work in front of a front of an audience that should be frightened by the prospect of poll taxes. But as attorney general he has never (and never will) walked into court and alleged the laws (which he opposes) are a violation of the 24th amendment.
Click to expand...

Largely because it's an easier legal hurdle to make an equal protection case than it is to make a poll tax case.

Doesn't make the laws in question not poll taxes -- and I note you didn't argue they weren't, either. Which is good. Because they are.
Click to expand...

What is it that makes them poll taxes? I mean, if the required ID was free ... how can it be a tax?

Wait a minute ... maybe I should post that question in the SCOTUS/Obamacare thread...

doctorquant · Jul 11, 2012

YankeeFan said:

Zeke12 said:

Seriously? Go back and look at John Ashcroft's calendar from the summer and fall of 2004.
Click to expand...

Ashcroft gave political speeches? Link?

And, assuming he did, was he criticized for it?

The guy couldn't talk about our terrorist threat -- in the aftermath of 9/11 -- without being accused of being political.

Holder goes to the NAACP to rile up the base, and that's fine though, right?

Talk about hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Well, there was that business about Ashcroft playing with justice's tit ... you can't tell me that wasn't political.

YankeeFan · Jul 11, 2012

doctorquant said:

Zeke12 said:

The Big Ragu said:

Poll taxes?

The 24th Amendment made them unconstitutional.

I have no doubt he'll try to make a populist speech about poll taxes, probably calling the attempts at voter ID laws a "poll tax."

And it might work in front of a front of an audience that should be frightened by the prospect of poll taxes. But as attorney general he has never (and never will) walked into court and alleged the laws (which he opposes) are a violation of the 24th amendment.
Click to expand...

Largely because it's an easier legal hurdle to make an equal protection case than it is to make a poll tax case.

Doesn't make the laws in question not poll taxes -- and I note you didn't argue they weren't, either. Which is good. Because they are.
Click to expand...

What is it that makes them poll taxes? I mean, if the required ID was free ... how can it be a tax?

Wait a minute ... maybe I should post that question in the SCOTUS/Obamacare thread...
Click to expand...

Who's going to provide the bus fare necessary to go down to the DMV to get these "free" IDs?

Log in or Sign up

The new and improved, fight-free Romney vs. Obama thread!

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

bigpern23 Well-Known Member

Zeke12 Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Zeke12 Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dixiehack Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The new and improved, fight-free Romney vs. Obama thread!

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

bigpern23 Well-Known Member

Zeke12 Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Zeke12 Guest

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

dixiehack Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches