Sponsored Links

[Bikerdad]

Every election, voters are asked to weigh their vote on basically three questions.

Do I like what this guy has done and more importantly, says he'll do?

Do I believe he'll take a crack at doing it?

Do I believe he has the necessary skills to do it?

Vision, trust, competence.

Questions for debate:

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

[AuthorMusician]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

Reduced double-speak and dirty tricks. Dedication to making government work rather than trying to either starve the beast or manipulate it toward benefiting rich buddies. On the side of little people. Rapid transformation from campaign mode to disaster management mode. Willingness to compromise for getting needed stuff accomplished, although I wish the situation were different (limit filibuster). That's a job for the Senate. No bug up the rear to start new wars. Favors the development of alternative energy. Willing to admit mistakes.

[amf]

That he's not trying to hard during the campaign to stake out ALL sides of each issue. Pick a side and stick with it for a year or two or explain why you're changing your mind... but don't pick one side, then pick another side, then say that you never believed the first side you picked or that you didn't pick that side at all... that's just lying.

[scubatim]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?
He isn't a sell out to political cronyism and isn't trying to buy the election with lies and distortions (not to mention the millions of dollars collected/spent). He isn't a part of any power hungry elitist organization that only want to be self serving. He is the most likely candidate to have the best interest in the people of the nation in mind and not donors and friends.

[Paladin Elspeth]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

I know what side of the issues he's on.

[Curmudgeon]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

On the other side of that coin, we realistically had a choice between two candidates. I have already voted for the one that I trusted the most.

But let's just take a look at what happened in the past few days.

A hurricane hit us here in Michigan. We had electrical power and an intermittent signal from the Concast Cable Company. We tuned to the local news channel for advice after learning from The Weather Channel that Lake Michigan was forecast to have Hurricane Force winds blowing from the North and producing 25 foot waves. We learned that Governor Ric "the Nerd" Snyder had taken no action. The local (Grand Rapids) weather reporter said, "The best advice I can give you is not to rake leaves until the storm has blown them all off the trees." The storm seems to have passed, yet most of the Oak trees seem to still have leaves.

The usual storm advice we hear in this area is for tornados, "Go to your basement, find a corner that is not near windows," etc. On the television, we have been hearing that many of the deaths resulting from this storm were from people who were hit by falling trees and people who drowned in their own homes. Then again, it was reported that the subway system in New York City flooded for the first time in 108 years. How do you prepare for what has never happened before?

But that question is moot. What we really have to ask is, "How did your chosen candidate react to the crisis that just happened in real life?"

Mitt Romney reacted to the hurricane with a "food drive." His campaign purchased the food at a local Wal-Mart, had volunteers hand it out to people coming to his rally, and then posed for a photo op collecting the now unboxed, unsorted canned goods. The boxes were then put on a truck to "New Jersey?" Did anyone think to buy can openers?

The Red Cross put out a plea for cash and blood donations, so they could spend it on needed supplies, and not waste volunteer time sorting donated goods. If Mitt Romney actually had an ear open to what "the private sector" could do, he could have used his event as a fund raising rally for The Red Cross and had a photo op donating blood...

But hey,

At a recent "storm relief event" in Ohio, Mitt Romney likened the Hurricane Sandy relief effort to cleaning a football field covered with "rubbish and paper goods." ( link )

In a crisis, one doesn't really need advice from someone whose main credential is that he knows how to wear a suit and tie. It helps to have someone on the job who can trust his staff enough to ask for ideas, and to be able to judge whether or not those ideas will actually work... (Roofs have blown off, subways have flooded, power is out for millions of people, the water is unpotable... Yep, I think a canned goods drive would look really useful...)

I voted for the candidate with the experience in governing and not for the candidate with the experience as a "businessman."

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Nov 1 2012, 05:32 PM

[AuthorMusician]

Mitt Romney reacted to the hurricane with a "food drive." His campaign purchased the food at a local Wal-Mart, had volunteers hand it out to people coming to his rally, and then posed for a photo op collecting the now unboxed, unsorted canned goods. The boxes were then put on a truck to "New Jersey?" Did anyone think to buy can openers?

I know, it seems so pathetic. However, I am reminded of the poor guy who got lost in the hills and broke into a cabin, found some canned food, and starved nearly to death while trying to open the cans with rocks.

He should have carried a pocket knife, and there's some sort of parallel here that I can't seem to get my arms around. I guess it's what would you trust more in a pinch, a knife or a rock? I have a medium-sized Swiss Army knife on my key ring. It can open cans, pop off bottle caps, make string, bend wire into hooks, and with that I would be able to make snares and snag trout. Then I'd be able to dress out the squirrels, clean the trout, make a fire drill, and eat like a king.

Another guy in the hills fought off a mountain lion with the same kind of knife. Predators hate it when their prey hurts them.

Ah, here's the parallel: Obama is the Swiss Army knife. That leaves the others as a bag of rocks.

[amf]

If Mitt Romney actually had an ear open to what "the private sector" could do, he could have used his event as a fund raising rally for The Red Cross and had a photo op donating blood...

Because what a photo op that would have been: the average middle class voter handing Romney money.

[Paladin Elspeth]

If Mitt Romney actually had an ear open to what "the private sector" could do, he could have used his event as a fund raising rally for The Red Cross and had a photo op donating blood...

Because what a photo op that would have been: the average middle class voter handing Romney money.

That's a good point. Maybe it just wasn't in the cards to have a "non-campaign" campaign rally ostensibly to help the victims of Sandy. Buying up all this stuff, and then having attenders take it in individually as a condition for attendance of the rally sounds lame.

Besides, can and food drives are held everywhere every day of the week. We have a food drive regularly at church, we've given cans of food for discounts at restaurants, we've even gotten discounts on our tickets to the Holly Renaissance Festival by each bringing a can of food.

Perhaps having a huge banner with the American Red Cross's name on it and a phone number at the rally and having a phone-in might have been effective.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 1 2012, 06:46 PM

[LoneWisdom]

If Mitt Romney actually had an ear open to what "the private sector" could do, he could have used his event as a fund raising rally for The Red Cross and had a photo op donating blood...

Because what a photo op that would have been: the average middle class voter handing Romney money.

That's a good point. Maybe it just wasn't in the cards to have a "non-campaign" campaign rally ostensibly to help the victims of Sandy. Buying up all this stuff, and then having attenders take it in individually as a condition for attendance of the rally sounds lame.

Besides, can and food drives are held everywhere every day of the week. We have a food drive regularly at church, we've given cans of food for discounts at restaurants, we've even gotten discounts on our tickets to the Holly Renaissance Festival by each bringing a can of food.

Perhaps having a huge banner with the American Red Cross's name on it and a phone number at the rally and having a phone-in might have been effective.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575425...m-relief-event/

The campaign removed all campaign-themed signage from the event, instead hanging one large American flag from the ceiling and posting information on donating to the Red Cross on two large TV screens hanging in the arena.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/...to-canned-food/

Romney told supporters at the rally yesterday that the campaign would deliver the non-perishable food items to a Red Cross facility in New Jersey. The campaign confirmed that their goods are on their way to a warehouse in New Jersey where they will be processed. And the campaign added that they have solicited financial donations from their supporters on Twitter and Facebook and at a rally in Florida today, Romney encouraged supporters to donate to the Red Cross.

Romney also made a personal financial donation to the Red Cross as well, the campaign said on Wednesday. They did not specify the amount.

[Jaime]

TOPIC REMINDER:

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

[Paladin Elspeth]

The campaign removed all campaign-themed signage from the event, instead hanging one large American flag from the ceiling and posting information on donating to the Red Cross on two large TV screens hanging in the arena.

At least that part of the rally was smart. Thank you for the information.

I believe my candidate to be a man of integrity. I believe that he will not eliminate or privatize Social Security and Medicare. The idea of a voucher or coupon to use in order to receive medical care sounds scary to someone who routinely misplaces her keys.

Obama's stance on women's reproductive choice is well known, and he will not be changing his position. His opponent, depending on the day, would definitely sign legislation to repeal Roe v. Wade, but he would somehow keep as exceptions to criminalizing abortion instances where women were raped or whose life or health was imperiled by pregnancy. And yet the Republican platform and his running mate want to criminalize abortion and deny women's right to abortions without exception. Sounds like a mess to me, and I don't want Romney appointing the next U.S. Supreme Court justices.

About the only thing I think Obama changed his mind about in a major way was equal rights for gays, i.e., gay marriage. I think it's about time that people of different sexual orientation had the same rights that we heteros do. Gays have always been with us, and if society has strayed, it is unclear to me that it was the fault of gays rather than our own misdeeds.

I wish the President would close Guantanamo Bay as he said he would, and I can only conclude that there are major problems that he and his administration have encountered in their hopes of doing this. I wonder why SuperMax Prison in Colorado wouldn't be a good place to detain people, but it might be the same situation--unwillingness of the residents--that precluded the administration from having Khalid Sheikh Muhammad from being tried in civilian court in New York City. Fear is a pretty powerful thing, the reputation of New York's Finest notwithstanding.

Obama does not change his positions the way his opponent does. Again, I know where he stands. I also trust that he is doing his best to improve the economy through job creation despite the efforts of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to thwart him.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 2 2012, 02:07 AM

[scubatim]

I believe my candidate to be a man of integrity. I believe that he will not eliminate or privatize Social Security and Medicare. The idea of a voucher or coupon to use in order to receive medical care sounds scary to someone who routinely misplaces her keys.

I will admit that I have not read anything to support my interpretation of the proposed new Medicare system, but my take on it differs greatly. My understanding isn't that you get a booklet of vouchers to take to the doctor every time you want to get a checkup. As I understand it, this system will provide a monthly premium support payment sent directly to the beneficiary to cover the cost of health insurance. Of course this is my interpretation of what is provided on his campaign site. If you have information that the intent is to actually provide beneficiaries with physical vouchers, I would be interested in seeing that information.

[AuthorMusician]

I believe my candidate to be a man of integrity. I believe that he will not eliminate or privatize Social Security and Medicare. The idea of a voucher or coupon to use in order to receive medical care sounds scary to someone who routinely misplaces her keys.

I will admit that I have not read anything to support my interpretation of the proposed new Medicare system, but my take on it differs greatly. My understanding isn't that you get a booklet of vouchers to take to the doctor every time you want to get a checkup. As I understand it, this system will provide a monthly premium support payment sent directly to the beneficiary to cover the cost of health insurance. Of course this is my interpretation of what is provided on his campaign site. If you have information that the intent is to actually provide beneficiaries with physical vouchers, I would be interested in seeing that information.

This does imply that cash will be handed to senior citizens. I'm wondering how that cash will be controlled, since there's nothing mentioned about assuring that the money is spent on health insurance or health care. Here's where trust would be required that somehow the cash payouts would be controlled, but without details, there's the next logical thought that the cash would be a different form of fiat money otherwise known as a coupon or voucher. That way only health care insurance companies or providers could actually cash this restricted fiat money for universally accepted fiat money.

On the other hand, the government could pay directly to health care providers, thereby bypassing for-profit middlemen and gaining some control over medical costs. If seniors want to have supplemental insurance, that'd be available.

In other words, handle it like it is now. Why introduce for-profit middlemen? That's guaranteeing that the overall costs will be higher, since profits would need to be made.

The lack of trust in this also has precedence when student loans were handled similarly, the middlemen being for-profit banks. Since then, President Obama got rid of that scheme. I have no need for student loans, but I do understand what was going on. It meant higher college costs for the students.

Ergo, the Romney plan would mean higher health care costs for seniors than is now existent in the present system. Since I handle the bills, I know that Lydia pays between $200 and $300 per month for Medicare and supplements. She had been paying in excess of $700 before she became eligible for Medicare. She is still working and not yet on SS, but that changes next year right around this time.

The bottom line for me is that I don't trust Republican efforts to privatize government, but I do trust that they will always try to do this. It's a fundamental difference in policy.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 2 2012, 04:03 PM

[scubatim]

This does imply that cash will be handed to senior citizens. I'm wondering how that cash will be controlled, since there's nothing mentioned about assuring that the money is spent on health insurance or health care. Here's where trust would be required that somehow the cash payouts would be controlled, but without details, there's the next logical thought that the cash would be a different form of fiat money otherwise known as a coupon or voucher. That way only health care insurance companies or providers could actually cash this restricted fiat money for universally accepted fiat money.

On the other hand, the government could pay directly to health care providers, thereby bypassing for-profit middlemen and gaining some control over medical costs. If seniors want to have supplemental insurance, that'd be available.

In other words, handle it like it is now. Why introduce for-profit middlemen? That's guaranteeing that the overall costs will be higher, since profits would need to be made.

This is a thought I personally have an issue with. Right now we have Part C, or Medicare Advantage. My clients that enroll in an advantage plan do so with a for-profit company that offer the plan at $0 premium, $0 deductible and a maximum out of pocket of $3900 all while offering better coverage than Original Medicare. This covers both hospital/doctors and prescriptions. With the thought process of, leave it the way it is and if you want to, buy a supplement, that is an insult to the majority of my clients in an advantage plans, they make too much for Medicaid and not enough to afford a supplement. I know you too know people that match this description. I bring all of this up because one major candidate has passed a law that will reduce the money sent to these private insurers to provide these advantage plans that benefit the lowest income earners. The end result will be that these plans will reduce their coverage and or increase premiums or both. Either way, that essentially forces low income seniors back to Original Medicare without help with all of the gaps in coverage and facing huge medical bills. With the other candidate, the lower income beneficiaries receive more assistance to purchase better coverage.

The lack of trust in this also has precedence when student loans were handled similarly, the middlemen being for-profit banks. Since then, President Obama got rid of that scheme. I have no need for student loans, but I do understand what was going on. It meant higher college costs for the students.

Ergo, the Romney plan would mean higher health care costs for seniors than is now existent in the present system. Since I handle the bills, I know that Lydia pays between $200 and $300 per month for Medicare and supplements. She had been paying in excess of $700 before she became eligible for Medicare. She is still working and not yet on SS, but that changes next year right around this time.

The bottom line for me is that I don't trust Republican efforts to privatize government, but I do trust that they will always try to do this. It's a fundamental difference in policy.

You do understand that supplements are offered by for-profit companies, right? You understand that the program that Romney is proposing is very similar to the existing program of Medicare Advantage, right? You also understand that supplements that Lydia is on won't go away under the Romney plan that keeps Original Medicare as an option for beneficiaries, right?

What I don't trust is the misinformation that too many have bought into. Both candidates lie about each other's position. Why people trust either of them is beyond me.

This post has been edited by scubatim: Nov 2 2012, 04:21 PM

[CruisingRam]

It appears as trust may have had some actual play in this election cycle:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-...eXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

PolitiFact suggested Wednesday that the ad was partly responsible for Romney's loss.

[Hobbes]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

Pretty much nothing. What would lead me to trust any political candidate is whether or not he seems to play politics more than work towards real solutions. Pretty much every candidate does this, and the more successful candidates tend to be the ones who do it the most. Hence, most of them are automatically excluded from my trust equation.

Since trust is out, I then arrange my voting on who I think will be most likely to enact policies I would be in favor of, or that would benefit me. In this since I do tend to develop a sense of trust, that being my trust in what I think they will actually do. This is often in conflict with what they are saying they will do--which is why my trust factor above is what it is. Most candidates simply say things they want their audience to hear, as opposed to what they actually are thinking. Why anyone then trusts them is always somewhat baffling to me....never trust a player, and all politicians are players. Voters are then the ones being played, and I hate being played. Yet who gets elected and what they do effects me, so I try to figure out what they really intend and whether or not they will do it, and base my vote on that. In general, the less someone actually plans on doing the better--the less impact it is then likely to have on me. So, I tend to trust most that person I think plans on actually doing the least.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Dec 13 2012, 05:56 PM

[Trouble]

Focusing on trust, what leads you to trust your chosen candidate?

The obvious stuff.

A ) How well does a candidate argue their positions?
B ) Does the candidate even attempt to argue a position?
C ) The amount of indignation (or lack of) a candidate throws at supposed "threats"
D ) What is their past voting history tell of their actions?

One can read into the survey as a data collection effort aimed at the bureaucratic class at the expense the lay people. The test itself quantifies the effectiveness of public relations, by generating feedback from emotions rather than facts. By taking factual analysis and observation out of the equation campaigners can better judge on how to prep their candidates. Candidates which insist on talking about issues can thereby by more readily marginalized because the base on constituents has moved from political discourse to political theatre by employing the odd man out principle. Dude, this is Bernays type studies.

Once the climate of personality is created those who insist on remaining factual can be excluded. An example is that for all his campaigning, in the end Ron Paul suffered the Ralph Nader treatment. And if you lack charisma like say Dennis Kucinich no matter how rational your ideas are a contrarian stance can be painted as standoffish. That is the power of personality driven politics. Once that occurs the opportunity exists for the media to portray you as either one dimensional or flat on any given issue. What this does is add gravitas to whichever candidate that can drive personality at the expense real discourse.

Clinton understood the concept intimately. Bush the younger tried it but couldn't maintain it, especially in the second term. Obama was elected because he stands head and shoulders above his competitors in the personality department.

The nub of your question involves how the media has evolved away from what the ancient Greeks would describe as logic. Really this is the Orwellian side of the arguement wherein state media employs techniques to control a given population. Hello Eastern Block country.

The ability to separate words from observable actions and employ reason is a skill which is on the decline in western countries. I would argue it is not exclusively an American problem. Writer John Michael Greer cites 19th century debates wherein the discipline of logic was more effectively employed by those of limited education than today. The inevitable conclusion was societies who trust are rife with endemic corruption. To trust rather than reason is a cultural problem manifesting in education according to Greer.

However, talking about education when all a voter wants to do is trust someone is an uphill endeavor. The only thing that type of voter wants is for someone to take any given issue off their hands and out of their minds so that "they" don't have to deal with it. The act of offloading responsibility is itself a cultural issue. A war on apathy? Good luck on that.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Dec 18 2012, 03:36 AM