Four years ago I waited until January to get this started, and chances are that I'll probably wait until the fall until I start posting polls and what not on a regular basis. But, the process has begun, for better or worse, debates are happening, polls are coming out, and they've begun their campaigns.
This campaign thus far has largely been about a fundamental redesign of the Republican platform from where it has been for the last several elections. In particular, the two biggest turnarounds have been on spending (which is suddenly bad), and terrorism (which we're no longer duty-bound to fight, at least, not quite so actively). Usually Republicans are noted for their lockstep unity, but Sen. McCain, perhaps channeling himself circa 2000, openly criticized almost the entire Republican field recently by criticizing their "isolationism."
I haven't read the transcripts for the GOP debate yet, but I'll do so in the coming days, and I'd like to find polling data from before and after the debate. It's still pretty early in the process, but I think the reorganization of the GOP platform will be interesting, especially as the political commentary is just starting to circle around the idea that the GOP is just plain out of touch with their main constituency.
It remains to be seen what, if anything other than the economy, this election will be about. And it remains to be seen just how hardcore Obama will defend, rather than explain away, his policies. Already we've seen Romney backpeddle pretty hard core on the auto bailouts. For a guy who wrote an article titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," he's been out and about taking credit for what he told Obama not to do a couple years ago. I think more than any election in recent years, the potential for pointing out flip flops this year is going to be especially fertile.
Feel free to post links, comment, and debate. I'll be in and out with polls, links, and news, from time to time.
[ November 14, 2011, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Republican presidential aspirations field so far has been idly described as 'disaster theater' — Trump, Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, all doing their toy presidency shtick next to candidates that would stand a ghost of a chance. Still, it's refreshing change to not see Tom Tancredo bouncing around in all this nonsense.
It will probably be Romney. And Romney can't win the election; Obama can only lose it. And the odds of that happening are slim. And, for the most part, most of the people in the field recognize that, and will probably gravitate to having the post-primary be an advertisement for the republican party writ large, rather than a serious hope of undoing Obama.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As far as the Republican primaries go, it's certainly Romney's race to lose. Betting markets are bullish on Huntsman, and Perry could potentially make the race more competitive, but if nothing changes between now and January I'd give Romney very favorable odds.
In the general, I think Obama's re-election will hinge on two questions: 1) do people feel like the economy is improving and 2) can he inspire and/or berate low-attention voters enough to get them to the polls. Yes to both, he wins in a landslide, regardless of who his opponent is. No on either and it'll be close. No on both and he loses by 30-50 electoral votes (at least to Romney, Huntsman, or Pawlenty; if the nominee is, say, Bachmann it would take a Black Thursday-type event for Obama to lose and if it's Cain, even that wouldn't help).
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
My uncle is a longtime conservative and he calls the republican field a bunch of looney tunes. He says something I don't understand: that if Ron Paul got through the primary he would "appeal a lot to liberals". Is that what diehard paulites are hinging their hopes on these days? Because thats pretty wishful thinking.
Others like Newt and Bachmann and Palin might as well be working for Obama. They make their own side look so bad.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As far as the Republican primaries go, it's certainly Romney's race to lose. Betting markets are bullish on Huntsman, and Perry could potentially make the race more competitive, but if nothing changes between now and January I'd give Romney very favorable odds.
In the general, I think Obama's re-election will hinge on two questions: 1) do people feel like the economy is improving and 2) can he inspire and/or berate low-attention voters enough to get them to the polls. Yes to both, he wins in a landslide, regardless of who his opponent is. No on either and it'll be close. No on both and he loses by 30-50 electoral votes (at least to Romney, Huntsman, or Pawlenty; if the nominee is, say, Bachmann it would take a Black Thursday-type event for Obama to lose and if it's Cain, even that wouldn't help).
I agree with your analysis. I'm kind of curious about Huntsman at the moment. Many of his statements/actions etc. would make a lot more sense if he had already won the primary and was now tacking to the center. Is he, perhaps, (a) using the 2012 primary to up his name recognition for a run in 2016/20, or (b) planning to run as an independent centrist in 2012?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I doubt Huntsman would run as an independent. It wouldn't be smart, and I think Huntsman's pretty savvy.
Honestly I was pretty surprised when he resigned his ambassadorship; I expected him to do it in 2013 to give him time to build for a 2016 run. But I guess the continuing weakness of the US economy (and Obama's weak poll numbers) convinced him to accelerate his timeline, which may explain why his campaign rollout (to me) has seemed a bit rushed.
<edit>Although these pre-announcement ads from Huntsman are the antithesis of "rushed."</edit>
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Oh, I think there's still a fairly good chance that Obama could manage to lose the election. It's an awfully long time away, and minefields seem to be everywhere these days.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
As someone who is disgusted with Utah politics, voted for Obama, leans Democrat, and recognizes that Huntsman is far more politician than idealogue, oddly I still find myself hoping that he gets the nomination and beats Obama. The Republican party needs to be moderated and Huntsman did it in solid red Utah, so he ought to be able to do the same in D.C.
(Admittedly this is partly because Obama's not getting the things done that I want.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone know where the Stewart Wallave interview?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Anyone know where the Stewart Wallave interview?
The interview can be found here (although I haven't watched it all).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I doubt Huntsman would run as an independent. It wouldn't be smart, and I think Huntsman's pretty savvy.
Honestly I was pretty surprised when he resigned his ambassadorship; I expected him to do it in 2013 to give him time to build for a 2016 run. But I guess the continuing weakness of the US economy (and Obama's weak poll numbers) convinced him to accelerate his timeline, which may explain why his campaign rollout (to me) has seemed a bit rushed.
It might also be that he was tired of being in China, and/or dealing with the Chinese. I've certainly seen that phenomenon before. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
From the narrow window of China issues, I'm thinking that Huntsman is running against too many liabilities.
First, speaking Mandarin when so many candidates were running explicitly anti-Chinese ads last time around doesn't seem like a good idea. (ex: Chinese Professor)
quote:Huntsman had other plans apparently, launching into his speech with a demonstration of his Chinese fluency. As his first introduction to the foot soldiers of the Republican Party, it didn’t go over very well. As languages go, Chinese is not the most elegant to the English-speaking ear, and it seemed to be especially jarring to the nearly all-white crowd of evangelicals, who listened with shock. You could almost see the elderly Christians from Wisconsin thinking “Manchurian Candidate.”
Second, on the same note, I can't help but think that this will be repurposed in an ad against him if he gets that far.
quote:Vice President Xi, who is likely to succeed President Hu Jintao as the top Communist Party and state leader from late 2012, appeared eager to stress Huntsman's bridge-building role as he looked to the ambassador's future. ... "I must take the opportunity to say a few words about Ambassador Huntsman. His term is coming to an end and we are reluctant to see him go. You are an old friend of the Chinese people," Xi told Huntsman, who was accompanying a delegation of U.S. Senators led by the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
I can't find a full video of the speech (given at Liberty Park in NYC), but I liked this bit from the news article:
quote:We must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster...If we don't, in less than a decade, every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. Meanwhile, we'll sink deeper into debt for everything else - from national security to disaster relief.
This is the most honest thing I've seen from any candidate (including the President) about the state of the federal budget.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I can't remember where I saw the analysis previously, but someone took InTrade's price on contracts for individuals winning the GOP nomination and compared them to the the price for on the contract for winning the Presidency. This computes a surrogate for the probability of winning the Presidency given that the candidate receives the nomination. This is, in turn, an estimate of the candidate's "electability."
There seems to be pretty significant overvaluation of both Cain and Paul's chances of winning if either is the nominee (I imagine this is due to well-known biases in estimating small percentages). I'd also say Romney is being a bit undersold to win the general (and, IMO, he's being undersold to win the primary as well).
But the Huntsman topline result is startling. The price is high enough that low-end bias effects are probably small. This is supported by what I think are pretty reasonable numbers for Pawlenty, Perry and Bachmann, whose prices are in the same range as Huntsman's for the general.
I wonder how much Huntsman's perceived electability will suffer as he's forced to actually make speeches where he embraces policy positions and defends his record as governor (something he hasn't had to do much of yet).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: As someone who is disgusted with Utah politics, voted for Obama, leans Democrat, and recognizes that Huntsman is far more politician than idealogue, oddly I still find myself hoping that he gets the nomination and beats Obama. The Republican party needs to be moderated and Huntsman did it in solid red Utah, so he ought to be able to do the same in D.C.
(Admittedly this is partly because Obama's not getting the things done that I want.)
Do you think that any Republican is going to do more of what you want done?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not really, but I have zero confidence in any Democrat accomplishing much of anything until the GOP is gentled a bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Not really, but I have zero confidence in any Democrat accomplishing much of anything until the GOP is gentled a bit.
Amen to that. Congress just doesn't work right now. Doesn't matter who is in the White House.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: First, speaking Mandarin when so many candidates were running explicitly anti-Chinese ads last time around doesn't seem like a good idea.
I want to believe that speaking another language isn't a liability, I really do, but Republicans.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe a language less, y'know, ethnic?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Esperanto?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's got the stink of hippie on it for starters, and to appeal to Republican primaries, well, I just don't know if it's sufficiently northwest European.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Not really, but I have zero confidence in any Democrat accomplishing much of anything until the GOP is gentled a bit.
Amen to that. Congress just doesn't work right now. Doesn't matter who is in the White House.
What is your definition of "work"? If it starts to very efficiently pass bad legislation isn't that worse than being broken?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Going back to the first post, I think accusations of flip flop only work against someone who it sticks to. And anyone using that expression risks evoking a Bush campaign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Maybe a language less, y'know, ethnic?
If he's from the south, we could recommend he learn real english as a second language
HEY-OOOO
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: First, speaking Mandarin when so many candidates were running explicitly anti-Chinese ads last time around doesn't seem like a good idea.
I want to believe that speaking another language isn't a liability, I really do, but Republicans.
Yeah, cause Democrats would never stoop to demagoguing China. Imagine what would happen to a Democratic candidate who was labeled a "friend of China" in front of a union audience.
<edit>Reading the non-China portion of the above linked article is interesting, given this quote about then candidate Obama:
quote:Obama rebuked rivals who mocked him as naive on foreign policy, defending his statement last week that he would be prepared to order unilateral strikes against Al-Qaeda in lawless tribal areas in Pakistan..."If we have actionable intelligence on Al-Qaeda operatives, including (Osama) bin Laden, and President (of Pakistan Pervez) Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense," Obama said.
</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Yeah, cause Democrats would never stoop to demagoguing China.
I wouldn't say that they're above that at all. But being at a point where even speaking a language raises enough xenophobic hackles that it makes it a liability in that party is a different thing.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
A large part of Obama winning was due to the minority vote. If Herman Cain were to be the Republican nominee the race would become pretty damn interesting.
I agree with the statement that the election is Obama's to lose. Unless something drastic happens in the economy to get us out of this mess we are in, he might find himself packing his bags next November.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Yeah, cause Democrats would never stoop to demagoguing China.
I wouldn't say that they're above that at all. But being at a point where even speaking a language raises enough xenophobic hackles that it makes it a liability in that party is a different thing.
I think that just speaking Mandarin would be as big a liability in a Democratic primary as a Republican one (and I don't think it would be a big liability in either one).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: A large part of Obama winning was due to the minority vote. If Herman Cain were to be the Republican nominee the race would become pretty damn interesting.
I think that's pretty wishful thinking. I don't think Cain's ethnicity would impact at the election outcome at all. In fact, I imagine it would be more likely that racist Republicans (of which there are some) would stay home than that black Democrats would switch their votes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unless something drastic happens in the economy to get us out of this mess we are in, he might find himself packing his bags next November.
There would have to be a severe additional downturn or some other new compounding factor to give any of the republican candidates a fair shake versus obama.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: A large part of Obama winning was due to the minority vote. If Herman Cain were to be the Republican nominee the race would become pretty damn interesting.
I think that's pretty wishful thinking. I don't think Cain's ethnicity would impact at the election outcome at all. In fact, I imagine it would be more likely that racist Republicans (of which there are some) would stay home than that black Democrats would switch their votes.
Racist republicans? You mean in contrast to the huge number of black voters that voted for Obama because of his skin color? Sure thing.
Samp, I don't know. If you look at the latest polls only 30% say they would vote for him. I know polls are mostly hogwash, but still. He's been shown as weak on the economy lately, and now with these budget battles he's really not helping himself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp, I don't know. If you look at the latest polls only 30% say they would vote for him.
1. Which polls?
2. This is 30% saying they would vote for him, in, a vacuum? Versus a specific candidate?
quote:I know polls are mostly hogwash, but still.
Hogwash polls are hogwash, hogwash inference and soothsaying from polls is hogwash, but there's still plenty that can be learned from most polls.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unless something drastic happens in the economy to get us out of this mess we are in, he might find himself packing his bags next November.
There would have to be a severe additional downturn or some other new compounding factor to give any of the republican candidates a fair shake versus obama.
Obama's favorables are in the mid-low 40s and there seems to be continuing downward pressure. If nothing material changes over the next 12 months (significant improvement in growth projections and/or unemployment rate) and if the GOP nominee is Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty I'd give even odds (if I were a betting man).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Geraine is referencing the CNN (?) poll that said 30% would certainly vote for him. There's a big difference between what the poll statement was and how Geraine presented it.
<edit2>It was also a poll of all Americans, reweighted to match census age and racial demographics. Meaning it likely overrepresents Obama's support to some degree.</edit2>
[ June 23, 2011, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Racist republicans? You mean in contrast to the huge number of black voters that voted for Obama because of his skin color? Sure thing.
My point was that nominating Cain would, IMO, be more likely to depress GOP turnout rather than increase voter crossover. I was pretty carefully not making a statement about the relative number of racists in each party, or their respective ethnicities.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: If nothing material changes over the next 12 months (significant improvement in growth projections and/or unemployment rate) and if the GOP nominee is Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty I'd give even odds (if I were a betting man).
Don't do it. At present the RCP aggregate puts Obama at +5.2 versus his best contender (Romney), and this isn't trending very much (it's been pretty static, only down from when Public Policy Polling was doing the vast majority of polls). Given Obama's electoral vote benefit from New England, this means that he would win the election in the vast majority of the electoral vote projections.
quote: You would need something that would allow the Republicans to significantly capitalize on, beyond the liability that they've offered themselves that has led to the Democrats putting out the message that the Republicans have purposefully attempted to sabotage the economic recovery for their own electoral benefit.
This one has been stone cold obvious (at least to me) since Day 1 of the Obama administration.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: If nothing material changes over the next 12 months (significant improvement in growth projections and/or unemployment rate) and if the GOP nominee is Romney, Huntsman or Pawlenty I'd give even odds (if I were a betting man).
Don't do it. At present the RCP aggregate puts Obama at +5.2 versus his best contender (Romney), and this isn't trending very much (it's been pretty static, only down from when Public Policy Polling was doing the vast majority of polls). Given Obama's electoral vote benefit from New England, this means that he would win the election in the vast majority of the electoral vote projections.
The predictive value of head-to-head polls this far out is essentially nil (at least according to Nate Silver). The incumbant's favorables and the economic indicators are more predictive (although certainly not perfect) and both of these point to a competetive race against any ideologically moderate candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This one has been stone cold obvious (at least to me) since Day 1 of the Obama administration.
Yeah, the voting record has been pretty damning. So of course it was going to take the democrats years to actually, you know, call them out on it.
That, or the democratic leadership wanted to wait for a strategic timeperiod to utilize the accusation in force.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: You would need something that would allow the Republicans to significantly capitalize on, beyond the liability that they've offered themselves that has led to the Democrats putting out the message that the Republicans have purposefully attempted to sabotage the economic recovery for their own electoral benefit.
This one has been stone cold obvious (at least to me) since Day 1 of the Obama administration.
How were you able to differentiate (and so early on!) between honest differences of opinion and these nefarious machinations?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: You would need something that would allow the Republicans to significantly capitalize on, beyond the liability that they've offered themselves that has led to the Democrats putting out the message that the Republicans have purposefully attempted to sabotage the economic recovery for their own electoral benefit.
This one has been stone cold obvious (at least to me) since Day 1 of the Obama administration.
How were you able to differentiate (and so early on!) between honest differences of opinion and these nefarious machinations?
Very simple. When you are in the minority (as the Republicans were in 2009), if you are serious about solving problems you work on compromises with the majority. The Republicans did exactly the opposite. They spent a lot of time grand standing promoting plans everyone knew could not pass and voted in block against any serious proposals. And they did this even though the economic packages that were passed in the early part of the Obama administration were actually substantially similar to those supported by the Republicans the previous year when Bush was President.
That made it very obvious that Republicans primary goal was not to fix the economy but to regain power. They knew that there only chances of regaining power was to make sure the economy was still in the toilet in 2012. I'm pretty sure I made those same observations here on hatrack back then.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I don't think that failure to compromise when you're in the minority, even coupled with grandstanding political rhetoric, is sufficient evidence that a group of people are monstrous, selfish political pigs willing to let their country burn if it only improves their electoral chances.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do you even watch the Daily Show?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I don't think that failure to compromise when you're in the minority, even coupled with grandstanding political rhetoric, is sufficient evidence that a group of people are monstrous, selfish political pigs willing to let their country burn if it only improves their electoral chances.
I doubt any of them thought the country would burn. Only that they live in a world where the state of the economy is not the sword hanging over the head that it is for other people.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Lets not forget what Colbert said, Obama is still the most Bin Laden killingest president in history. You know that counts for something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think that failure to compromise when you're in the minority, even coupled with grandstanding political rhetoric, is sufficient evidence that a group of people are monstrous, selfish political pigs willing to let their country burn if it only improves their electoral chances.
I think refusing to compromise when you are in the minority with proposals that are substantially equivalent to those you supported when you were in control is hard to interpret any other way.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Racist republicans? You mean in contrast to the huge number of black voters that voted for Obama because of his skin color? Sure thing.
My point was that nominating Cain would, IMO, be more likely to depress GOP turnout rather than increase voter crossover. I was pretty carefully not making a statement about the relative number of racists in each party, or their respective ethnicities.
Ah ok I understand. I apologize for the comment.
I do have to disagree though. I really do not believe the mainstream conservative voters have any problem with Cain because of his skin color. I don't think they would stay home if Cain were the nominee.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nominating a black candiate wouldn't be enough to get maybe even 10% of black votes in addition to vote, blacks vote for democrats overwhelmingly because Democrats are the only ones to consistently helping the urban poor.
Republicans will never be able to shack of the stigma as being the party being actively out to get black people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think refusing to compromise when you are in the minority with proposals that are substantially equivalent to those you supported when you were in control is hard to interpret any other way.
So if, hypothetically, Democrats find themselves in the minority after 2012 and if, hypothetically, they opposed a policy they supported when in the majority (like, for instance, extending the Bush tax cuts) that would be evidence that they were putting partisan advantage over the common good?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Racist republicans? You mean in contrast to the huge number of black voters that voted for Obama because of his skin color? Sure thing.
My point was that nominating Cain would, IMO, be more likely to depress GOP turnout rather than increase voter crossover. I was pretty carefully not making a statement about the relative number of racists in each party, or their respective ethnicities.
Ah ok I understand. I apologize for the comment.
I do have to disagree though. I really do not believe the mainstream conservative voters have any problem with Cain because of his skin color. I don't think they would stay home if Cain were the nominee.
I don't believe mainstream conservative voters would have any problem with Cain because he's black. I think a relatively small portion of the GOP base would be more likely to sit out the election. However I believe that portion is larger than the portion of the Democratic base that would be persuaded to cross over just because of Cain's skin color.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think refusing to compromise when you are in the minority with proposals that are substantially equivalent to those you supported when you were in control is hard to interpret any other way.
So if, hypothetically, Democrats find themselves in the minority after 2012 and if, hypothetically, they opposed a policy they supported when in the majority (like, for instance, extending the Bush tax cuts) that would be evidence that they were putting partisan advantage over the common good?
I'm not sure the Democrats supported extending the Bush Tax Cuts. They recognized that extending them was the only way to get Republicans on board for certain things they wanted.
But if say there was a renewed push for healthcare reform, and Republicans dug up President Obama's plan for healthcare including a public option, and indicated they felt it was a reasonable compromise, if the Democrats dug in their heels and did the same sort of grandstanding, you'd be absolutely right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But I'm not sure the things Rabbit is faulting Republicans for being intransigent on aren't things that weren't suggested as potential compromises (much like the Democrats' support for Bush tax cuts). This would include things like cap and trade, health exchanges, the public mandate, and several other policies which the Republican party once supported but now opposes.
It's also useful to note that the 2006 and 2008 Democratic victories largely purged moderate Republicans from federal positions. It shouldn't be surprising that the mean position of the caucus shifted as a result. Furthermore, many Republicans blamed policies espoused while in the majority for the terrible losses they suffered in 2006 and 2008. This suggests another reason the party leaders should rationally change positions.
I don't think that Rabbit has demonstrated sufficient justification for her view that Republican leaders are trying to harm the national economy in order to improve their electoral chances. I think there are several, more rational, explanations of the behavior she's identified as her evidence. I also think she's demonstrating personal partisanship in her interpretation, which is why I was trying to suggest and equivalent formulation for Democrats.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well, this is turning into an interesting Republican vs. Democrat debate.
Did anyone else here this morning that Rick Perry announced privately that he intends to publicly on August 2nd that he will be running for president. (I heard this on the radio, so I'm not sure what the EXACT facts were.)
I'm pretty unsure how I feel about this.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I laugh at the idea that he has any chance.
And then I'm terrified of the idea that he has any chance.
My mother, who lives in Texas, has started a game that boils down to "Stupid *#&% that Perry did or said this week." Any does anyone else this its odd that Mr. Secession wants to be president?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Is he actually a Secessionist???? I don't pay any attention to them. Secession is an interesting idea with which to play "what if?" games, but it can hardly be taken seriously! It would probably make wonderful speculative fiction...
I actually haven't paid too much attention to him lately. I've tried to vote the "whoever has the best chance of ousting Perry" route in the last two elections and had no luck. Still, even though I thought he was a slime ball, there was a period when I felt like he was making some pretty decent decisions.
And then...
We got to this legislative session and he kept classifying things as an "emergency" that were, quite clearly, NOT emergencies! It ticked me off! I even actually agreed with his position on a couple of the bills, but the fact that he tried to push them through as emergencies really upset me.
So we get to the question of, "Is it worth putting Perry in as president if it will get him out of Texas question."
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
He's not a serious secessionist but I've heard him pandering to that group and playing the "we could leave the union if we wanted to" card. The average proud Texan will joke about those sorts of things but the tone he uses always seems a one step past playful.
And I think people were asking the same question when GW Bush ran and look how well that turned out.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Good point Shanna....
So I hear Michelle Bachmann is also running, and that she knows exactly what to do to fix our economy! It's such a relief that someone has a complete plan!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Did anyone read the rolling stone hit piece on bachmann? Brutal, hateful, totally justified.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bachmann has a backlog of gaffes that go back several years. When the GOP candidates finally take off the gloves and attack each other directly, instead of these wishy-washy weekend attacks that they try to explain away the next day, she's going to get hammered. Romney will get hit a lot too, but then, a lot of it will be recycled from last year. Romney seems well on his way to winning the nom, if only because the field is laughably weak this time around. I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I feel sorry for Americans right now, you guys don't have alot to look forward to it seems.
In Canada, I get to look forward to a NDP majority government in 5~ years or so unless the Conservatives make a push for the center by destroying the liberals (but would split themselves in the process and thus a NDP minority).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... I get to look forward to a NDP majority government in 5~ years or so ...
I find this rather dubious without support in Ontario. A party can manage a majority without Quebec. It might be able to scratch by without the West. But with the quantity of seats in Ontario, especially after the new bill to increase the seats in Ontario and the West due to population changes, I just don't see it happening.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ontario can be explained by people voting aginst their interests due to the NDP being a relative unknown to many liberals who either stayed home or voted Conservative; 5 years will be plenty of time for the NDP to build up a larger base of support in Ontario, many of the ridings were vote split among greens, ndp and liberals allowing for minor margin victories in several districts, with the nDP viewed as viable candidate even more people could be considered able to vote for them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Right, because Ontario has never had an NDP government. Layton hasn't been running the NDP from Toronto for almost a decade now.
I think you'll find that many people in Ontario know their self-interests quite well and will gladly vote against a NDP majority.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Probably not once it fully sets in how damaging to middle class interests and to Canadian democracy the Conservatives ultimately are. Or they'll split themselves trying to destroy the liberal party.
Running a campaign from Toronto doesn't intrinsically carry on the image of a safe candidate to voters, the NDP have had to deal with the fact that a long while now that if you didn't want CPC in power vote liberal as voting NDP would split the vote, which it did in this election as many voters who normally vote strategically instead voted NDP.
So now we have the NDP as the official opposition, the NDP's job now is to tread carefully, create the appearance of a government-in-waiting and gain the confidence of the Canadian voter. Having more seats in Ontario doesn't magically imply less chances for the NDP to win, close analysis shows that for probably over a dozen seats the NDP were between 100 and 2000 votes from winnning the riding, this isn't an unsurmountable gap to close now that they can build the image of being ready for gov't.
Keyboard being finnicky on me. Better thread here Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As damaging as the Conservatives are to democracy, the NDP would be damaging to the economy. Given a choice between those two unpalatable choices, Ontario voters ended up voting for the Conservatives to stop the NDP rather than for the NDP to stop the Conservatives. Money speaks louder than democracy.
Additionally, Horwath (and Layton to a lesser extent) is making it worse by championing NDP policies that are horrible for the environment, ensuring that they won't even pick up the Green vote.
Ultimately, Ontario has 106 seats currently, in your best base scenario, the NDP pick up 12 additional seats (to their 22). That is not enough to close the gap with the Conservatives who currently have 73. When you factor in the 18 additional seats from population changes, which will likely be concentrated in 905, the NDP are boned.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That was last election when the NDP were still an electoral unknown and heck, I wouldn't want them to win then anyways because they're unprepared for the task of government, I'm not even sure if they have a shadow government.
But they have the next 5 years to get their act together and show that they're the best choice to not only lead on ideological grounds, but will always have the organization and experienced enough MPs for the job.
Next election they will be in a better position to be like hey "We're best for the country" and it's the Conservative's election to lose, either gauranteed because they killed off the liberals through withdrawing voter subsidies or because they have acted like a bunch of tards and the people are fed up.
Since its supposed that Harper's iron discipline will loosen and cracks are already starting to show up the prospect only grows.
Finally I hope your only speaking to voter perception and not honestly suggesting that the NDP are bad for the economy, that's just blatantly false.
If anything long term Canada's economic prospects under the CPC are bleak, they're withdrawing funding from educational institutions in lieu of acquiring revenue and growth from resource extraction. Which as we can already see in Russia will lead to lower competitiveness of the economy and primivitization.
It's the CPC who are boned as they will be unable to maintain their momentum the NDP only have to pick up seats.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The fact that the Conservative party is bad for the economy, doesn't really answer the question as to whether the NDP would be even worse.
The problem is that the NDP has a history of pretty silly proposals, which would be understandable if they at least succeeded in being socialist, but they often fail at that too.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Has this really turned into a 'Nuck political discussion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is there a problem with that? Threads drift.
(Is 'Nuck a shot, or considered rude? I don't know.)
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Naw. Just a nickname for the Vancouver hockey team. I am still bitter, please excuse my outburst.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The fact that the Conservative party is bad for the economy, doesn't really answer the question as to whether the NDP would be even worse.
The problem is that the NDP has a history of pretty silly proposals, which would be understandable if they at least succeeded in being socialist, but they often fail at that too.
You have not answered the question as to how the NDP would be worse, so far their proposals have been Pro-middle class and fairly reasonable to grow the economy by focusing on _people_ by outputting more skilled people into the workforce. Increasing taxes on the rich/corporations doesn't hurt the economy so long as other incentives are introduced to keep Canada a favorable place to invest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Has this really turned into a 'Nuck political discussion?
Personally, I think that it has is hilarious.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
I agree. It all comes down to the economy. If Romney gets the nomination (his chances are looking good) and he runs on the economy, he can highlight his experience in turning businesses around and making them profitable.
President Obama can't do that. I don't know what his strategy would be against Romney to be honest. He could go with the "flip flop" thing or try to blame the last Republican President for the economy, but I think he will have a little harder time than he did in 2008.
Obama has a record he has to defend now, which is unfortunate for him.
Even though all of the Republican candidates are weak, I still think this will be one of the most interesting election cycles ever. Not because there are two great candidates, but because there will be two weak ones. Its almost like Jimmy Carter vs. Dan Quail.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
And now they could be rewarded for that. It boggles.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
BTW, I fully expect some sort of dummy to make a statement along the lines that Obama if he looks to be limited to one term, that it's being done because of racism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Has this really turned into a 'Nuck political discussion?
Personally, I think that it has is hilarious.
じ~~~
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Increasing taxes on the rich/corporations doesn't hurt the economy so long as other incentives are introduced to keep Canada a favorable place to invest.
This in a nutshell, is part of the problem. It used to be that the Conservatives were defined by championing tax cuts while the NDP were about raising taxes on the rich in order to pay for spending. This made at some sense until the NDP decided that their tax policies would make them unelectable.
So the NDP no longer talk about increasing taxes, mostly they talk about about cutting them and promoting tax revolts. Bizarre for a socialist party I know, but look through their platform and you'll only find one oblique reference to raising corporate taxes (which is a dubious way of raising revenues to boot ). You won't find a single reference to raising personal taxes.
What you will find are cuts on taxes on heating your home. The NDP in Ontario go one step further and promise cuts on gasoline and electricity.
Thats right, an anti-carbon tax. Funds are taken from general revenues to encourage people to use more electrcity and burn more fossil fuels. And even weirder, since the poor tend to have smaller houses and drive less, they won't even get the bulk of the money.
And all this at a time when we're in deficit and Canadian economists generally recognise that Stephen Harper's cut to the GST was a bone-headed idea.
There are other silly ideas too, the credit card proposal and the CPP/OAS proposal, but the main issue is perfectly encapsulated here
quote:The NDP's SEP was the mirror image of the Conservatives': tax increases that no-one had to pay. Corporate taxes, tax expenditures on fossil fuels, and $2b/year from a 'Tax Haven Crackdown'. (That last one is a particular favourite of mine, since I was able to quote verbatim the entire discussion of the issue as laid out in the NDP platform in the space of three words.) If you're willing to ignore such abstract notions as tax incidence and corporate personhood - and my experience from the campaign is that almost everyone is - then corporate taxes are easily hidden in an SEP.
The NDP aren't a good choice for Ontarians. They aren't even a good choice for die-hard progressives, which is actually kinda sad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd almost call it sad too, because Obama is absolutely beatable.
You know, up until recently I was fairly certain Obama was a shew-in for a second term, but the economy honestly feels like its poised for a sudden drop, and that would devestate his chances,especially if Romney gets the nomination.
Other than that though, I think the Republican field is ridiculously weak right now, if they manage to smear the Republican nominee enough during the infighting/Primary stage I think that will virtually guarantee a second term for Obama.
I agree. It all comes down to the economy. If Romney gets the nomination (his chances are looking good) and he runs on the economy, he can highlight his experience in turning businesses around and making them profitable.
President Obama can't do that. I don't know what his strategy would be against Romney to be honest. He could go with the "flip flop" thing or try to blame the last Republican President for the economy, but I think he will have a little harder time than he did in 2008.
Obama has a record he has to defend now, which is unfortunate for him.
Even though all of the Republican candidates are weak, I still think this will be one of the most interesting election cycles ever. Not because there are two great candidates, but because there will be two weak ones. Its almost like Jimmy Carter vs. Dan Quail.
I think a big difference maker will be whether or not Obama runs ON or FROM his economic policies. If he runs on the stimulus and bailouts being a success, then I think he has a good chance of turning the economy into a positive and blaming Republicans for stifling progress. If he runs from it, then he's in trouble, because it makes it sound like he's either wrong or ineffective.
Despite the overall FEEL of the economy, there are a ton of bright spots to run on. Manufacturing has seen small but steady upticks over the last year, the economy has averaged tens of thousands of jobs a month added (some 100K+ months) over the last couple years. Obama will say he single handedly saved the auto industry for a very cheap cost when Romney said to let them fail. He'll then trot out auto execs on his side saying they needed the loans to get by, when Romney will say they didn't. It'll be a rare time when he'll have big business AND labor on his side. There's a lot of little stuff like that he'll be able to use. Romney will try to attack him on healthcare and he'll force Romney to trot out his "It works in MA but not nationally..." mantra, which will piss off liberals AND conservatives, because he's going both too far and not far enough.
Plus there's the fact that Romney's just sort of...weird, when he's off-script. There've been articles written about how just plain awkward the guy is when he's not delivering a speech or engaging in some sort of scripted interview/dialogue.
I think of those who are in the race, he's probably the best chance the GOP has, but he's just kinda meh, in general. I think he's the most presidential, but lacks the charisma factor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Yes. Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
And now they could be rewarded for that. It boggles.
While I agree with you in principle, it's very hard to say by how much it would be better. The major pushes (TARP money/bank bailouts/etc) that he wanted he managed to get passed. It was mostly healthcare that I felt the Republicans dug in on.
Overall my major gripes with Obama have been.
1: Timidity. On several key issues Obama has not demonstrated confident leadership. On the issue of Guantanamo he brazenly declared he was closing the facility. I can understand problems have arisen in that effort, and that that is not his fault. But he has not been forthcoming with the difficulties, and still has not announced a permanent solution years later. edit: He has also battled for continuing the policy of keeping enemy combatants in prison without formal charges. He promised a stop to that, why is that promise unfulfilled?
With the Arab Spring Uprising, he rightly committed troops to assist the Libyan opposition. Right now things are looking good for Omar's departure, but he very nearly smashed the opposition before Obama committed the airforce. He was too slow, and too timid in the opening days of the conflict. In Egypt he practically waited until the Egyptian military had made its decision to take over the government before taking a stand. He has done very little to assist Syria, Bahrain, and every other Arab nation making motions for serious democratic reforms. Syria bothers me the most.
I give him props for taking a risk with the operation that brought down Osama Bin Ladin, I know he is capable of confidently asserting his positions. I felt he was very much involved in the health care debate to the extent that was proper, same goes for the economic policies designed to get us back on track.
Republicans are demanding cuts to government projects and institutions, rather than giving an inch on taxes. Now that they are dealing with Obama directly I expect him to stand up and find a way to tell them no. Taxes are not off the table, serious government waste isn't either. (edit for correction)
2: Transparency. One of the hallmarks of Obama's campaign was changing how government communicated with the citizenry. He promised that bills would be posted on whitehouse.gov for several days before he would sign them every single time, that the government would act less secretly, and more openly.
He touted the citizens briefbook where citizens could nominate and vote for policy matters they thought were well conceived and worthwhile, he also promised the most popular one each week would be considered along with all the other briefs his departments submitted to him. He discontinued that program just a few months in, and hasn't given it a second thought. Protections passed in Congress to protect whistle-blowers and other federal employees who wish to air legitimate grievances to the press or Congress have been opposed by his administration.
He has also elected to allow many of the power grabs the Bush administration made to carry over into his watch. Details relating to extraordinary rendition and CIA interrogations have been kept locked up, and FOIA requests while slightly better under this administration than the Bush administration are still ignored, and judicial loopholes are used to avoid legitimate petitions.
3: Following Up. People castigated Bush for not having a follow up plan for Iraq after the initial invasion. Obama has not followed up on his economic policies nor his healthcare initiatives. I'm willing to forgive the latter more than the former. With healthcare it's going to take time for the system to readjust, but I wouldn't mind seeing a report of how he sees that transition and whether he feels additional reform is needed.
With the economy however, Obama has fallen short of his objectives. He project unemployment numbers that never happened, and while economists have declared that the recession is over, 2% growth is still pretty low. I'd be much happier with 3-4%. So what's going on? What is the followup plan since the initial plans didn't do the trick?
4: Infrastructural Development. has not been seriously undertaken. I know the money that could have been spent on that has in large part been spent in other places, it's spilled milk, but instead of talking about high speed rail, and alternate energy, where's the beef? China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Beijing, and far ahead of schedule. Our nation built railroad across the entire country, freeways everywhere, why aren't we doing it again with high speed rail? Get people out of their cars and airplanes, we should/can do it.
I'd very much like to see in the coming months what Obama's plan is for the next four years, in many respect he *has* delivered on campaign promises. He did attack the recession in the manner he said he would, he did push very hard for healthcare reform, he has increased pel grant amounts and pressed for more flexibility in getting folks into college. I don't feel nearly the sort of buyer's remorse I felt for Bush. But if it comes down to him and Romney, he's going to have to earn my vote this election.
[ June 28, 2011, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is unfathomable and frustrating is that the economy would be better had the Republicans not thwarted the President's efforts.
Kate, what do you think the President tried to do (but was blocked by Republicans) that would have made the economy better? I honestly have no idea. Maybe a bigger stimulus? But I don't remember him ever stating he wanted a bigger stimulus (and it's also not clear to me that a bigger stimulus in 2009 would have resulted in a better economy today, although it's possible). Raising taxes on the wealthy? That seems unlikely to have had any short-term impact. Some provision of the health-care law? Again, most of what wasn't passed wouldn't have had any effect on the economy, and certainly not in time for right now. I just can't think of any of Obama's efforts/goals that 1) would have impacted the economy today and 2) were thwarted by Republicans (even if we include conservative Democrats).
Partly this is because the President doesn't have that big an impact on the economy (except perhaps through appointments to the Fed), and partly its because he hasn't chosen to strongly advocate for politically uncomfortable measures that could have an economic impact (like additional stimulus or free-trade agreements).
Yes. Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
I think having Diamond on the Fed could have made a difference.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
3: Infrastructural Development. has not been seriously undertaken. I know the money that could have been spent on that has in large part been spent in other places, it's spilled milk, but instead of talking about high speed rail, and alternate energy, where's the beef? China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Guangzhou, and far ahead of schedule. Our nation built railroad across the entire country, freeways everywhere, why aren't we doing it again with high speed rail? Get people out of their cars and airplanes, we should/can do it.
It's worth pointing out that high-speed rail is not a quick thing to implement. Funds were allocated for rail. Since taking office, off the top of my head, governors (R) from New Jersey, Ohio and Florida have all returned the funds for the rail projects. In the last case, the funds were for a high-speed rail route that could have been up and running well before the route in CA.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One big problem with high speed rail that we have - and that China does not - is that we don't control the land on which the rail would be built. This was not so much of a problem in the thinly settled 19th century but it is now.
I also have a problem with timidity and transparency. But better a timid centrist president than a bold right-wing one.
[ June 28, 2011, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Guangzhou, and far ahead of schedule.
Beijing to Shanghai I think. I don't think there's Shanghai to Guangzhou that will be done soon.
Shanghai to Shenzhen will probably be ready in 2012 though if I'm reading the schedule correctly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... China just finished up its high speed rail line from Shanghai to Guangzhou, and far ahead of schedule.
Beijing to Shanghai I think. I don't think there's Shanghai to Guangzhou that will be done soon.
Shanghai to Shenzhen will probably be ready in 2012 though if I'm reading the schedule correctly.
Good save, I cobbled that post together while at work between calls, and it wasn't as fact checked as it could have been. Although Beijing to Shanghai is a fairly comparable distance as Shanghai to Guangzhou. And 2012 is still a staggering rate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There's been a bit of noise over Michelle Bachmann saying that removing the minimum wage would improve job creation.
To be fair, while she apparently said that in 2005, the impression I got with her remarks today is that she doesn't want to get caught contradicting herself, and that she is willing to look at everything.
I think removing the miminum wage is crazy, and recklessly irresponsible, but I don't think she is seriously considering it. I hope I'm not wrong though. :{
As for the interviewer's surprise she considers John Quincy Adams to be one of the founding fathers, I think she tried to make a good case. I'm somewhat partial to the idea that much of the countries founding took place in the first 15 years of the republic. It wasn't just 1776-1787, John Quincy Adam's official career in government started about seven years after the constitution was ratified, but he started out overseas as an ambassador. He didn't really return seriously to American politics until 1817. He certainly fought slavery for a very long time, and was a serious opponent, but I don't think you can really say he was a founding father in any meaningful way.
One of the shapers of America? Absolutely, founder? No.
edited for grammar and clarity.
[ June 28, 2011, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Larger stimulus - even if it meant tax increases - and a true health care reform instead of the cobbled together bits we had to settle for.
The difference between Obama's proposed stimulus and the stimulus that passed was not significant. If his original healthcare proposal (actually, IIRC he didn't really have an "original healthcare proposal"; he let Pelosi and the House set scope, get pushback from Republicans (and moderate Dems), and then presented something pretty close to what passed as a triangulation) had passed it wouldn't have had any appreciable (and certainly no positive) effect on today's economy.
That Republicans have been obstructionist is undeniable. But Obama hasn't tried to break the back of their opposition with a proposed set of FDR-style federal programs, either.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I think having Diamond on the Fed could have made a difference.
I think having Diamond on the Fed would have been a net positive, but I think it still would have been Bernanke's show. I could certainly be wrong, but even had Diamond been confimed immediately after being nominated in April 2010, I doubt that any of the Fed's major decisions since then (e.g. QE2, flat prime interest rates) would have been materially impacted. Now if Obama had nominated Diamond as Chairman of the Fed instead of Bernanke, that could have made a difference (possibly for the better, although I'd need to be convinced of that).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's been noise over Bachmann saying pretty much anything at all, because she's one of the least self-aware human beings in politics. she probably totally believes what she's saying at any given time but watch what happens when you try to correct her or get her to answer questions straight or admit she was talking out of her butt at any given point. It gives you flashbacks to conversations here about what we did or didn't see what Obama's grandmother did or didn't say on tape.
Consequently, her political history is chock-full of extremely insane events that point to the depth of her personal delusions, augmented religious self-importance, etc. My personal favorite so far is when lesbians trying to talk to her caused her to freak out and scream and run away crying that they were trying to imprison her or something. Lesbians literally gave her a mental event. Dirty scary lesbians!~
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My favorite Bachmann moment is when, to a crowd in her old hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, she said, "John Wayne was born here; I've got a bit of his spirit, myself." Which would perhaps be a nice sentiment if it were true. Unfortunately, John Wayne was born well over a hundred miles away; John Wayne Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa. *laugh*
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
The problem is that I can't think of a single person I'd honestly want to vote for for president right now because virtually everything has become so polarized. Even every day folks I know in my personal life are scrambling around trying to figure out "who is to blame", it's all so crazy. I'm pretty sure I'm not immune to it myself.
That being said, I pretty much want to cry anytime I hear new republican candidate nominations. Most of them tie my stomach in knots because they feel like disasters walking. I don't even like the current president.
I feel, like BlackBlade, that he hasn't met his obligations. I feel like he keeps compromising at exactly the wrong points, so that we get just enough of his programs in place to screw up the current system, but not enough of it to make the new system work.
So, I'm totally open to change... but the options seem to be getting worse and worse.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My favorite Bachmann moment is when, to a crowd in her old hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, she said, "John Wayne was born here; I've got a bit of his spirit, myself." Which would perhaps be a nice sentiment if it were true. Unfortunately, John Wayne was born well over a hundred miles away; John Wayne Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa. *laugh*
John Wayne Gacy was born in Chicago, Illinois. He lived for a time in Waterloo during his late 20s, but was most infamous for his life upon return to Chicago in his 30s and 40s. John Wayne (the actor)'s parents met in Waterloo (at least according to Dave Weigel) and Winterset, Iowa (where he was born) isn't so far away (100 miles is probably right, but that's not so far, culturally speaking). Bachmann admitted, though, that she had been mistaken when she made her statement.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
In fact, Bachmann and Gacy's time in Waterloo probably overlapped. She was born there in 1956 and moved to Minnesota either when she was 10 or 12 (I can't remember exactly; I think she mentioned it in her announcement speech) putting her in Waterloo from 1956-1966/68. Gacy moved to Waterloo sometime between 1965 and 1967, and lived there for 2-3 years before he was put in prison (for sexually assaulting two teenage boys) in 1968.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:When trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wife’s “strategist,” runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to “ungay” themselves.
Just last summer, Dr. Bachmann explained his position on homosexuality while offering theoretical advice to parents concerned that one of their children was gay.
BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…
And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
So, is he saying there is a small percentage of people who are truly homosexual, and not just deviant sinners, but that society is making more homosexuals by not discouraging it?
If so, can he "ungay" the true homosexuals???
If not, what does "truly is the percentage of homosexuals in the country" mean?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he means that teh gays are a very, very tiny minority (never moved from their barbarism), but that with the efforts of wicked humanists, atheists, agnostics, bad science and of course Obama...THEY'RE ON THE RISE! Gunnin' for your KIDS OMG!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Samp's quote appears to be from thinkprogress blogger Sarah Bufkin. A somewhat edited radio clip that includes Marcus Bachmann's statements (linked from the thinkprogress blog post) appears here.
The quote about barbarians is taken slightly out of context. His point seems to be that humans have all sorts of impulses and feelings, and that the sinful path is submission to those impulses while the godly path is submission to "the Godly principles of truth in God's word that should direct our paths." He applies that generalized view specifically to homosexuality, saying that those who question, are curious about, or even experiment with their sexuality shouldn't be condemned. But they also shouldn't be encouraged by friends and counselors to explore and act further on those feelings.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, while I kind of doubt that the more charitable explanation applies, Marcus Bachmann's statement isn't really wrong if you look at it in a certain way.
The number of strict homosexuals in our country is small. However, we've seen children raised in environments that are permissive of homosexuality (like with homosexual parents) do experiment much more with homosexual relationships, even though ultimately, they fix into a straight/gay/bi/whatever orientation very close to the average population. So, having a permissive environment is likely going to lead to having many more people experimenting with gay behavior, even if it's unlikely to change the numbers that much. I think that's probably going to be better for our society in the long run, but if you're coming from a perspective where gay behavior is a bad sin, I can see where this would be something you'd want to strongly oppose.
---
That's one of the weird things about a lot of the anti-gay movement: that they have this conviction that without strong pressure against homosexuality, tons of people would totally go gay. There's no realistic basis for this, but considering how many of them are majorly gay on the qt, it's understandable that they think everyone else is like them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bout time we saw some classic, old school pandering and ridiculous promises.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Still haven't seen an answer (unless I missed it, previous answers that might have been 3-5 months back I've missed and don't feel like digging up) but what is the 60-87 trillion$ for US debt that I see bandied about in Austrian Economics/Libertarian circles?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That sounds about right for the total cost of all US entitlements if they were to be fully funded with today's promised benefits for everyone alive today.
I might be off on that somewhat, or what it entails, but I remember reading a figure like that recently and it involved unfunded entitlements.
And I'm reposting this from the previous page so no one misses it (how many people go back to the previous page to check for missed posts?)
sincerely signed, a man who can now never win a republican primary
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uh, Samp, I'm running for *President* so I think what that means is that all of the, uh, batshit crazy things I've said over the past decade should just be given a free pass, because it has nothing to do with me running for *President*.
God what a maneuver. How simple. How powerful. Wow utterly stupefyingly dumb.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That sounds about right for the total cost of all US entitlements if they were to be fully funded with today's promised benefits for everyone alive today.
I might be off on that somewhat, or what it entails, but I remember reading a figure like that recently and it involved unfunded entitlements.
And I'm reposting this from the previous page so no one misses it (how many people go back to the previous page to check for missed posts?)
Bout time we saw some classic, old school pandering and ridiculous promises.
You know, gas prices were below $2.50 near the end of 2008. Of course, we had to have a near-collapse in order to get there.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:@JonHuntsman Jon Huntsman To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
sincerely signed, a man who can now never win a republican primary
You say that like he had a chance before. Huntsman splashed big with the press, but his poll numbers never moved out of the low single digits. He's got more attention from that single twitter post than anything else he's done since announcing back in July.
I think there's some evidence that he's running for Secretary of State rather than President. That or he's trying to play a long game and position himself for 2016. Or he's totally clueless. I'm undecided on the matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's more likely is positioning for Veep slot.
McCain's problem in 08 was that he wasn't conservative enough, so he picked a woman that would go on to be the queen of the Tea Party to shore up his right flank.
If someone like Perry or Bachmann gets the nomination after openly courting the far right in the primary, Jon Hunstman becomes a great bone to throw to centrists leery of an ultra-conservative in office.
Personally I never really understood VP politics like that. I know that's how candidates and campaigns think of them, but the VP rarely has any sort of effect on my vote. In 08 specifically, McCain being so old, with health problems, and Palin being anathema to me, that would have seriously turned me off. But in general, the sort of balancing effect that campaigns tend to try for never holds sway with me, and I can't imagine it does with others either.
What centrist would look at Bachmann and say "Oh my, she's pretty extreme! Thank goodness Jon Huntsman is there to balance her out, I'm sure she'll follow his lead."
Regardless, I think that's where he's headed. Either that or he's delusionally sacrificing Iowa in hopes of a strong showing in New Hampshire. If he comes in fourth I'll be impressed. If he comes in third, I'll be absolutely shocked.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: You say that like he had a chance before.
I say it like i couldn't have conceptually ruled out his chances in the future before.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: thank you bachmann.
At 8 pm on 9/7, Obama wants to hold a special joint session of congress to outline his "new" jobs proposal (early indications are that it's mostly a retread of last year's proposals for business R&D tax cuts, tax cuts for hiring new works, innovation tax cuts, and some other tax cuts).
Coincidentally, there happens to be a major GOP primary debate scheduled at the same time. There's a reason they call it the bully pulpit!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Coincidentally, there happens to be a major GOP primary debate scheduled at the same time.
The primaries are for the base and the base isn't watching Obama.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Coincidentally, there happens to be a major GOP primary debate scheduled at the same time.
The primaries are for the base and the base isn't watching Obama.
You don't think Obama's team was playing politics with the scheduling choice? The debate was going to be nationally televised on at least MSNBC, but I don't imagine it will be now (at least not in its entirety). To me it seems like a pretty blatant attempt by Obama to deny air time to his opponents, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good heavens. Isn't it enough that the President bends over backwards on policy? Now you want him to arrange his schedule to suit the Republicans as well?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good heavens. Isn't it enough that the President bends over backwards on policy? Now you want him to arrange his schedule to suit the Republicans as well?
If he'd asked for the time slot before the debate was scheduled, you'd have a point. And maybe it truly was just the best time for him personally. But I think it's fairly naive to assume there isn't an element of political gamesmanship in the scheduling.
I'm not complaining, per se. I'm just pointing out the President occasionally plays political games, just like all successful politicians.
<edit>For the flip-side, note the remarkable correlation between Sarah Palin's recent visits in NH and Iowa and the announced schedules of GOP candidates. She announced a trip to NH right after Romney's campaign released their plan for his candidacy announcement in NH. She showed up at Ames right during the straw poll, drawing considerable attention away from the candidates. She's throwing a hissy fit over Christine O'Donnell doing the same thing to here in Indianola, IA this weekend. It's just part of politicking, something Obama is "pretty good at."</edit>
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:I'm not complaining, per se. I'm just pointing out the President occasionally plays political games, just like all successful politicians.
In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that Obama is throwin' an elbow in terms of media time.
My question really, as a registered Independent, is, "So what?" There's 'throw a monkey wrench into Republicans connecting with their base in a given event' and there's 'intentionally sabotage Congress to ensure nothing gets done, and pin it on the President and Democrats in order to win an elections.
One crowd is throwin' elbows, and frankly the other crowd is doping and Tonya Harding-ing. They all play games, there's no denying that. And I'm not sayin' you (Senoj) are claiming there's an equivalency there. I just like to point out that there, well, isn't when things like this come up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While I understand the concept of "bully pulpit" (Thank you, Theodore!) the notion that anyone could claim to be bullied by the President just makes me sad. We could only be so lucky.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm betting this has less to do with halting coverage than it does with keeping the GOP fray busy while he drops a policy speech.
I think every debate is great for Obama. Sure, the base beats up on him, but they also beat up on each other, and the more they do, the weaker they become and the more fodder he has to attack them with later. They should have a debate every day.
I think this is more about wanting to keep them focused on the debate, and quiet, while he gives a policy speech, so they have to focus on the debate and not attacking him. What will be interesting is if Bachmann and Paul even attend the debate.
If he's doing this big speech just to say what he's been saying, a lot of people will cry foul, but on the other hand, he spent an entire month in June pushing various policy initiatives, like the Infrastructure Bank, and the media didn't pay attention to him at all. Some of this might be recycled policy, but it's only because no one was watching the first time, and now he's really using the power of the pulpit to make sure people pay attention.
I'd like to see a big push for targeted stimulus, but, I doubt he'll even try. The sad thing is, he has no concept of dreaming big and then settling. Instead of asking for a lot and accepting less, he's far more likely to ask for less, thinking it's the compromise position, and THEN having to settle for less than that. It's like you go to a negotiation thinking the other side will take $50, so your starting position is $50, then they negotiate you down to $25. You should have started at $100, and Obama never does that. Having a big policy idea is often like having ablative armor. You have to be able to burn some of it off to protect the really important stuff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'you see, the presidency is like mechwarrior ...'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I lol'd. TBH though, I'm not sure how much money we could pull together for a targeted stimulus. We've blown our wad so to speak.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Honestly, I think "stimulus" was the wrong mindset, just think of it as borrowing money at super-cheap rates (close to 0%) to hire people at exploitative salaries to build infrastructure you're going to need to build sooner or later. Why wait until land is more expensive, borrowed money is more expensive, and you have to pay people more to work?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I currently think we absolutely need infrastructural development, and the government needs to start training and hiring people to do those jobs. While those jobs are temporary they keep people busy, they earn money to stay afloat, and they take that training and form businesses and even industries with it. At worst they cross apply it to another position and find permanent employment that way.
8-10% employment is killing us. Well, that and the increasing income disparity gap that will only be resolved when pay is drastically restructured, by either government mandate, or popular uprising.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"...are employee snacks subsidized? The answer, sadly, is no."
-Ethan Hawke Reality Bites Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Honestly, I think "stimulus" was the wrong mindset, just think of it as borrowing money at super-cheap rates (close to 0%) to hire people at exploitative salaries to build infrastructure you're going to need to build sooner or later. Why wait until land is more expensive, borrowed money is more expensive, and you have to pay people more to work?
Because America always waits till the last minute and then pays twice what was necessary for a job half as adequate as is needed.... Don't you know *anything*?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: While I understand the concept of "bully pulpit" (Thank you, Theodore!) the notion that anyone could claim to be bullied by the President just makes me sad. We could only be so lucky.
Sounds like you're right; either he tried to bully them and backed down when the optics turned bad, or it was simply an oversight. Boehner accused him of breach of protocol in not clearing the date with Congressional leadership first. The White House pushed back briefly, but then decided to move the speech to the next day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It was pretty childish TBH. There wasn't any need for there to be a conflict in the first place, I wonder if presidential aids simply dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why would Congressional leadership be clearing dates for the Republican primary?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Congressional leadership generally clears the dates for Joint Sessions of Congress (not Republican primaries). I guess that's the protocol, the President can't just mandate that Congress show up. In this case, had the President asked Congressional leadership about the proposed date, presumably the GOP would have objected on the grounds that there was a primary debate involving two of its members already scheduled.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The more I think about it, the more I am a bit irked that the business of the congress is being postponed for what is basically party campaign business and the convenience of television networks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The more I think about it, the more I am a bit irked that the business of the congress is being postponed for what is basically party campaign business and the convenience of television networks.
Televised debates, involving men and women making their case for becoming President of the USA is an important part of our government.
The President announcing his plan for economic recover and getting it discussed can wait one more day. Heck they haven't even finished the speach he will give presenting it, so it's not like it's going to be hurting if he has 24 more hours to iron out details.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that, in this particular situation, it is not a big deal to reschedule but I think that it is a bad principle.
I think that there should be some separation between running for office and governing. The two are not the same. We shouldn't, for example, reschedule votes so as not to conflict with campaign events. Congress is supposed to be in session on September 7. There is plenty of recess time for folks to campaign. We should not prioritize running for office ahead of what they are supposed to do once there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We shouldn't, for example, reschedule votes so as not to conflict with campaign events. Congress is supposed to be in session on September 7. There is plenty of recess time for folks to campaign. We should not prioritize running for office ahead of what they are supposed to do once there.
That would further disadvantage challengers to an incumbent president who can set his own schedule. I don't think it's a big deal to miss a few votes while campaigning, provided those missed votes don't make the difference in which way the vote goes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they decide to miss votes, they can miss votes and the people who elect them can deal with it. I have a problem with rescheduling votes for campaign events.
Congress is in recess a lot.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
But now the speech might conflict with the NFL's season opener between the Green Bay Packers and New Orleans Saints! There is nothing more American than football!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have Drew Brees in one of my fantasy leagues...I'll be reading the transcript of the speech later.
I think this incident is demonstrative of the difference between Obama and the GOP. If one of the candidates was president, you'd be hearing all about how they're more interested in campaigning than in fixing the country, and how they should move their debate to do their duty as congressmen or whatever in trying to fix the jobs crisis. What a wasted opportunity to play politics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I think every debate is great for Obama. Sure, the base beats up on him, but they also beat up on each other, and the more they do, the weaker they become and the more fodder he has to attack them with later. They should have a debate every day.
That worked so well for republicans in 2008.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was a little different because the Democrats were doing the same thing, so it split the media focus.
But yeah, essentially, you saw how vicious they got in some of those debate three years ago. The closer we get to Iowa and New Hampshire, the more vicious it will get, especially as the "top tier" decides to swing at each other and not ride above the herd, and as the herd discovers it IS a herd.
The only one thinking outside the box is Huntsman, and he's thinking WAY outside the box. I have to say though, more and more I'm leaning towards Huntsman as a third party candidate with a Democratic Congress as my personal favored outcome. I don't know enough about him yet, but he's the only Republican in the field I would even consider, and I'd rather vote for him as an independent, where a split vote might garner a more liberal Congress. I think he's probably the only candidate running (possibly except Romney) who could actually get both sides to compromise on something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Election seasons in the US are way way too long. The last election in the UK, it was (if I remember correctly) 6 weeks from when the election was called to the vote. Elections should be fast and furious. That way politicians have to focus on serious policy issues. There is not time for posturing, posing and reinventing yourself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree, somewhat. The election season is WAY too long.
But I also kind of wonder if that system is really applicable to the United States. This is a country where money and name recognition are what matters most. Neither of those things really matters in Britain. Dark horse candidates need time to raise money, shake hands, introduce themselves, be in debates, etc., so they can hope to do well in an early primary state and build momentum. I think 24 months is WAY too long of an election cycle, for a variety of reasons. The whole damn country shuts down every two years because no one wants to do anything controversial until the moment right after an election.
But shortening it too much would only reinforcement establishment candidates. On the other hand, how do you even control the election season? Short of a total revamp of our system, we all know when elections will be, and I imagine free speech laws make it difficult to outlaw ads or campaign stops whenever the candidate wants to.
Even still, even when it really comes down to the nitty gritty, our elections are rarely about serious policy issues. I think that's as much a cultural thing as anything else. We're either too dumb or too easily manipulated to choose the substantive candidate over the polished smooth talker.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Proportional representation would be a start.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In particular I find Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan interesting. 9% flat business tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% national sales tax.
What a lovely way to dramatically shift the tax burden onto the poor and middle class! Huge, massive tax cut to the wealthy, and huge, massive tax increase to everyone else. The middle class would still see a nice tax cut out of this, I think, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference I'd imagine.
I'm not against a national sales tax, or VAT, as a debt-reduction method to start hacking away at the ballooning debt. I think we should have a 1% sales tax and every year the money MUST go to pay down the debt, and we should have it for ten years. I have no idea how much money that would yield, and I have a feeling Congress would simply add more debt as the sales tax pays it down, so it might not even make a dent, but now is the perfect time, while deficit reduction is on everyone's minds. I have to imagine it would make a good dent.
But to attempt on the backs of the poor is a terrible idea.
A 59 point plan? Well, I've never had a problem with complexity. More often than not, it's a lack of complexity that is our problem.
Roll back burdensome regulations? Hello environmental destruction! There was a bunch of polls recently released that showed very, very few businesses actually list burdensome regulation as a roadblock to hiring. This is a scapegoat the GOP is using because they want to help their corporate buddies rape and pillage the environment. That's bluntly put, but it's no less true. Why else be an enemy of clean and and water?
5% cut to non-entitlement, non-defense spending? Sweet. Way to solve less than 1% of the problem. He's agreed to cut 5% from an area of the budget that comprises something like 10% of the whole thing. So you want to cut 5% of one tenth? Either he's terrible at math, or he's assuming we are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:He said he would consolidate government training programs and order that any new regulations add no new costs to the economy.
This is actually not very descriptive. Does he mean net, or not? For example, Obama just cut a new air rule that would have actually saved several billion dollars. While the up front costs weren't negligible, it would have saved far more in health costs over time. So does this count as a new cost to the economy? When overall it's a net negative?
quote:Economists who reviewed Mr. Romney’s economic plan had different reactions. Steve Blitz, a senior economist for ITG Investment Research, said he doubted that cutting tax rates would stimulate much job creation.
“I think you can go through the history of the U.S. economy and find that tax rates really aren’t the paramount reason why people do things or why the economy expands or contracts,” Mr. Blitz said.
Other economists questioned the wisdom of placing sanctions on China, an important trade partner and the United States’ largest government lender.
“I don’t think that’s the most constructive approach,” said Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the author of “The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World.”
Mr. Spence said both the United States and China needed to figure out how to better align their interests and work cooperatively rather than antagonistically.
“China would like nothing more than for us to miraculously recover,” Mr. Spence said. “That would be the best thing for their economy.”
With House Republicans singling out regulations as “job killing,” Mr. Romney promised to “cut out any regulation that would “unduly burden the economy or job creation.”
Mixed results, it would seem. I'm curious to see what The Economist or the WSJ think.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either he's terrible at math, or he's assuming we are.
The cynic in me is leaning towards the latter.
quote:Mr. Romney promised to “cut out any regulation that would “unduly burden the economy or job creation.”
How perfect: who could possibly object to regulations that unduly burden the economy? And yet he doesn't give us any way to tell the difference between a due burden and an undue one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I'm mostly interested in The Economist, but we'll have to wait until next week. -----
quote:He also promised to make permanent the tax cuts on individuals enacted under President George W. Bush and to eliminate taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains for anyone making less than $200,000 a year.
At first I was like this , then I was like this .
On the one hand I think the Bush tax cuts are terrible, but eliminating taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains on those making less $200,000 is a new one, I don't have an immediate response.
quote:Consolidating federal training programs and giving states authority to design and carry out training programs for unemployed workers.
I think it's things like this that Romney *would* be most successful at. Cutting waste is something he was good at at Bane Capital. He will need good advisors though in helping him comprehend the difference between the US economy and a business' bottom line.
I don't think he will be as anti-tax increase as he seems to be now. He's too business oriented for that, he'll see all the projections after cutting all the spending and realize that taxes have to go up. He's smart enough to eventually realize that I think.
I'm not impressed with his pledge to repeal Obamacare, not that he could get that done anyway, he'd need support from Congress, and the numbers aren't there.
At least he has put concrete stuff up there, and those things can be debated and discussed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either he's terrible at math, or he's assuming we are.
The cynic in me is leaning towards the latter.
quote:Mr. Romney promised to “cut out any regulation that would “unduly burden the economy or job creation.”
How perfect: who could possibly object to regulations that unduly burden the economy? And yet he doesn't give us any way to tell the difference between a due burden and an undue one.
I already made the argument that the health savings are a net economic gain, but Paul Krugman takes it a step further by saying regulations actually create jobs and stimulate the economy as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even in the most Keynesian of worlds, regulations would only have a positive effect in that way for a small percentage of the time. Krugman knows that, too, so I don't know why he's spewing BS about that being much of a reason to support regulations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe just because it's a specific situation? And because of all the cash companies are sitting on? I'm just spitballing here, I don't really know.
Personally, when it comes to environmental regulations, especially when it's an issue of health more so than a "save the spotted owl" argument, I always side with what saves lives and saves money in health care costs. You can't put a price on human life, but saving thousands for a couple billion seems like a steal at twice the price.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Low thousands or high thousands? And what do we mean by saving? Because we could extend most people's lives by a few days to a few months if we were willing to spend half a million to a million dollars on it. The thing is, there isn't that much money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if you deal in abstractions, sure I guess. That's still a pretty vague argument. The sort of rule we're talking regards air pollution that causes premature deaths, due to either lung disease or heart failure. It also tends to exacerbate problems in those who already have lung problems, especially asthma sufferers. So it's not a matter of prolonging lives for a little bit. For most of these people, it's a matter of years, and they're not being affected by poor choice or random acts of nature, it's created by us, with them as collateral damage. If you want to talk about vague abstractions, picking the low-hanging fruit who could be saved for the lowest amount of money, then you probably could save more for less, but that's not exactly repeatable.
Even so, it's not just a philosophical discussion. Saving these lives isn't just a payout. It SAVES us billions as well from medical costs often incurred in the course of treating these ailments.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Burns and Haberman at Politico have a nice rundown of last night's debate. Lots of sparring between Romney and Perry over jobs and Social Security. Huntsman sniping at Romney over the China portion of his jobs plan. Bachmann evidently unable to hold anyone's attention now that Perry is in the room.
quote:Perry’s bet is on a conservative, confrontational and mad-as-hell Republican Party. Romney’s is that GOP activists want, above all, to win and will come to recognize that nominating the Texas governor would be an act of political suicide.
The divide between the two men reflects an ongoing debate that’s splitting the Republican Party both on the campaign trail and beyond it. Some of its leaders, looking back at the 2010 midterm elections, believe that the party – and the nation – are ready to gorge on red meat as never before. The American people, goes this line of thinking, recognize that entitlements must be addressed and that old-style demagoguery over the issue has become less effective.
Others believe deeply that the laws of political gravity still apply - that Social Security and Medicare reform must be handled with great care, if at all, and that 2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. The divide is both strategic and ideological, and as Romney and Perry emerge clearly as the party’s two presidential poles on the issue, it will take on an even higher profile than it did during the punishing debate over Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.
FWIW, I think the "Romney" bet is much the better. 2012 isn't 2010; demagoging over socialist healthcare has lost its motivating power (just as demagoging over the failures of the Bush presidency lost its potency after the 2008 election). People right now care about jobs and the economy, not entitlement reform and socialist creep. In fact, I'd say that's what they cared about in 2010 as well; the Tea Party town halls merely provided a channel for the people to express their rage over the stagnant economy and lack of jobs. But I think that the Perry position (as depicted by Smith and Martin) confuses the channel with the source.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: People right now care about jobs and the economy, not entitlement reform and socialist creep.
The problem is that a lot of people have been gulled into thinking that problems with the economy are a direct result of entitlements and socialist creep.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I kinda like the term socialist creep. It makes me think of the Zerg in Starcraft, and it seems like a very useful term.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
That's interesting. The thing is, with the direction of the Republican party, it seems more likely to me that two things will happen: 1. Extremists will control the agenda, which favors Perry. 2. People will embrace simple rather than complex arguments, which favors Perry.
Also, if I'm a Democrat in an open primary and I don't have to vote for Obama, I'm voting for the wackiest Republican possible to help Obama win. A lot of those same dems and center-left independents are going to for for Huntsman (he's banking his entire run on just that happening), but some will vote for people like Palin, Perry and Bachmann just to screw with the process.
Romney is their strongest candidate, but the guy is also full of flaws. Actually, HUNTSMAN is their strongest general election candidate. But he'll NEVER survive the primary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Romney is their strongest candidate, but the guy is also full of flaws. Actually, HUNTSMAN is their strongest general election candidate. But he'll NEVER survive the primary.
This is sort of correct? I haven't yet come across much data on Huntsman having better electoral chances vs. Obama than Romney.
But outside of Romney, the rest of the choices are, as mentioned, political suicide. Perry seems the go-to guy for democrats who want to take a page out of the GOP playbook and game the election by getting the less viable pick through the republican primary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just going to repost an /r title.
quote:Bachmann delivers rebuttal to Obama jobs speech: "I listened to it on the radio coming in and then I caught the tail end of it in my office." Derides Obama for "not listening".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Romney is their strongest candidate, but the guy is also full of flaws. Actually, HUNTSMAN is their strongest general election candidate. But he'll NEVER survive the primary.
This is sort of correct? I haven't yet come across much data on Huntsman having better electoral chances vs. Obama than Romney.
But outside of Romney, the rest of the choices are, as mentioned, political suicide. Perry seems the go-to guy for democrats who want to take a page out of the GOP playbook and game the election by getting the less viable pick through the republican primary.
Huntsman is a guy who most Republicans, at the end of the day, will either vote for in the general, or they'll stay home, but most will vote for him because he has a great record from a super Red State.
His biggest strength is that he's a moderate. He's a moderate but without Romney's flamethrower language. He'll woo a LOT of independents who won't like Romney because of he's tacking to the right. He'll bleed off enough centrists and center-left Democrats to beat an Obama that will also be fighting a lack of enthusiasm in his own party.
The numbers are pretty even from what I've seen, but that's also because most people don't know him. He has bad name recognition. But once he gained a national audience, I think he'd win.
I'm a rabid liberal, and I'd even consider voting for him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Absolutely an interesting perspective, but like I said, not a lot of data showing that he's their strongest potential general election candidate. Of course, this mostly because there is a dearth of polls that factor in a level of presented or prerequisite knowledge about him.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a rabid liberal, and I'd even consider voting for him.
How much do you know about his actual voting record? He's certainly presented as a moderate, but is he, actually? I don't know enough about him to really say. I like that he recognizes that global climate change is actually happening, and that evolution is a real phenomenon, but those two things, combined with less willingness to pander to the Tea Party end of the Republican spectrum, doesn't a moderate make.
Note that I'm not saying that he isn't moderate; I just don't know enough about him to say.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a rabid liberal, and I'd even consider voting for him.
How much do you know about his actual voting record? He's certainly presented as a moderate, but is he, actually? I don't know enough about him to really say. I like that he recognizes that global climate change is actually happening, and that evolution is a real phenomenon, but those two things, combined with less willingness to pander to the Tea Party end of the Republican spectrum, doesn't a moderate make.
Note that I'm not saying that he isn't moderate; I just don't know enough about him to say.
I lived in Utah during the '08 election. I had the unique pleasure of being able to vote for both President Obama and Governor Huntsman. If it was a contest between the two of them on the ballot, I too would have to think seriously about my vote. And like Lyrhawn, I'm also a pretty adamant liberal. I've been staff on democratic campaigns and held local party offices.
To clarify how Huntsman is a moderate. He believes in more stringent enforcement of current immigration policy but also wants discussions of streamlining the process of immigration. When watching the GOP debate, all the other candidates were adamant about how they would not discuss reform until the border was secure. As governor of Utah he pushed forward civil union laws. Again, as governor of Utah he was able to get civil union laws for same sex couples on the books. He also does believe that science and empiric fact should be taken account of when drafting policy.
That said, he does have a conservative ideology. I disagreed with him on school vouchers while he was Governor (but appreciated the method he was trying to use to implement them) and he does come from a smaller-government-is-better mentality. But what's more to the point is he's an established pragmatist wherein he doesn't let ideology get in the way of getting stuff done. That's a healthy attitude for anyone to take. And while I disagree with where he comes from ideologically, I think he's the type of person who could deliver on the promises Obama made in '08. Obama is not a spitfire liberal, he's a pragmatist. But the opposition of the Republican party is so strong, that anything he does is instantly met with complete obstruction and refusal.
I think Obama is the better leader, thinker, and choice where it comes to policy. But I think Huntsman makes a strong case for being better for the country right now because I don't think the Republicans would let up on their opposition to Obama if he were to win re-election. And frankly, I think Huntsman is a good example for what the Republican party could and should be. If electing Huntsman president would bring sanity back into the Republican caucus, then I would seriously consider voting for him over Obama.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Romney is their strongest candidate, but the guy is also full of flaws. Actually, HUNTSMAN is their strongest general election candidate. But he'll NEVER survive the primary.
This is sort of correct? I haven't yet come across much data on Huntsman having better electoral chances vs. Obama than Romney.
But outside of Romney, the rest of the choices are, as mentioned, political suicide. Perry seems the go-to guy for democrats who want to take a page out of the GOP playbook and game the election by getting the less viable pick through the republican primary.
Huntsman is a guy who most Republicans, at the end of the day, will either vote for in the general, or they'll stay home, but most will vote for him because he has a great record from a super Red State.
His biggest strength is that he's a moderate. He's a moderate but without Romney's flamethrower language. He'll woo a LOT of independents who won't like Romney because of he's tacking to the right. He'll bleed off enough centrists and center-left Democrats to beat an Obama that will also be fighting a lack of enthusiasm in his own party.
The numbers are pretty even from what I've seen, but that's also because most people don't know him. He has bad name recognition. But once he gained a national audience, I think he'd win.
I'm a rabid liberal, and I'd even consider voting for him.
The only flaw in your reasoning is that he won't be nominated. He *might* win at a brokered convention. Maybe. That I see as his only chance.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Vadon, thanks for that; it definitely gives me more information than I've had about him thus far.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think Obama is the better leader, thinker, and choice where it comes to policy. But I think Huntsman makes a strong case for being better for the country right now because I don't think the Republicans would let up on their opposition to Obama if he were to win re-election.
Thats pretty amazingly true, too. He could literally say "I'm the better choice for the country, because if obama wins, my party will continue to do their best to obstruct and ruin everything!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Orincoro -
I know. That's what I said a couple posts up. What makes him a general election heavyweight is what makes him virtually a non-combatant in the primary.
Noemon -
I'd have to explore more, which is something I'd do after he hypothetically wins the primary. I won't waste my time, because I think we've virtually seen the last of him, or we will have after New Hampshire (aka, his only hope), but he's certainly saying almost all the right things now, which takes balls. He KNOWS he's saying all the things you DON'T say to win a GOP primary. I think part of that is strategy; he's clearly going for centrist, Democratic votes in open primaries, and center-right Republicans. The other part I think is that it's genuinely how he feels.
Samp -
Sad as that sounds, that's also part of why I think he'd be so effective. I think he could win, but not with as strong a coat tail effect, because too many Dems and independents would split tickets, with Dems in Congress and him in the White House. GOP would still pick up seats, but now it will be Democrats in the Senate filibustering everything. All deals would come down to what the Republicans can get out of Senate Democrats, if they're smart enough to wield the filibuster as much as Republicans did.
I think with the GOP in charge of almost all the government, especially if they have 51 in the Senate, they'll feel compelled to make deals just so they don't fall prey to the same obsctrutionism they're attacking Obama with right now. Huntsman strikes me as a deal maker. Romney actually does too, a bit, but none of the others do.
I'm so jaded after these last couple years that I think that's just the only way we're every going to pass legislation so long as the GOP exists.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I don't understand Pawlenty's strategy here. Maybe he felt that, given time he'd drop even further out of the nation's consciousness, so now was the best time to make his endorsement and keep his name in the headlines. He denies that he's angling for a VP slot, but who wouldn't (deny it that is).
From an ideology standpoint, I think the endorsement makes a lot of sense. When Pawlenty was trying to be the guy who wasn't Romney in the race, it was difficult for him because he was so much like Romney. He was a modest, uptight white guy running on a good governance platform who tended to be a little cerebral, even wonky, and lacked the fire in the belly that Rick Perry has brought to the primary.
It seems to me that the endorsement pushes the going narrative: Romney is the favored candidate of the establishment, Perry is the favored candidate of the Tea Party, and the nomination will largely be decided by which of those elements of the GOP gets their voters to the primaries.
One other interesting side point: post debate shares on InTrade show Romney up about 7 pts at 38 and Perry down 3 at 35. I think Perry's glibness on the SS issue, and his letting himself get distracted from his game plan (which has to be jobs, jobs, jobs), probably impacted perceptions of electability among people paying attention. The most recent polls don't reflect a big change, but these things often start among high information political junkies (like InTrade users) and then filter down to the less attentive general public.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hah. Pawlenty endorsed someone? Considering how low his name recognition is, and how poor his fundraising was, what's the point? An endorsement from him is virtually worthless, it was just a chance to grab headlines.
I suppose it does lend some small weight to the "establishment" narrative though, as you say Senoj.
Tonight's debate (what, another one already?) will be interesting. What sorts of questions will be asked that makes it any different from the one they just had like five days ago?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Given the venue (Tampa, FL), I'll be interested to see if SS/Medicare comes up, and if so whether Perry tries to mollify seniors by tweaking his answer. It's also billed as a Tea Party debate, so I wouldn't be surprised if the themes tend toward healthcare reform and other Tea Party hot button issues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Perry has clarified his statement in recent days to mean that while SS is a ponzi scheme that will screw over younger workers, he thinks it should be protected for everyone who has it or who will soon be using it.
I don't know if he has any replacement plan for the rest of us though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... he thinks it should be protected for everyone who has it or who will soon be using it.
Heh. "It's a Ponzi scheme, but don't expect me to do anything but screw over the people who are being screwed even more"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Watching the debate tonight has been amusing. No concrete answers on anything, just a lot of catch phrases, misdirections and in some cases, outright lies.
Crowd is eating it up, but then, it's a self-selecting group.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also, apparently, it's Obama's fault that Bush and the GOP Congress in 2001 and 2003 cut taxes and blew up the deficit. That time traveling bastard!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What I got from the first hour of the debate:
We're going to repeal the health care act but we don't know how to replace it.
We're going to protect social security for seniors, but we're going to do something totally new for younger people that seniors probably wouldn't like, but young people will love!
We're going to lower taxes and "reduce waste," which will somehow magically get rid of the trillion and a half dollar deficit, but we won't touch entitlements and defense. Apparently they found a magic wand somewhere to make that happen.
We need to entrust the entire country to corporations, who have our best interests at heart, and will create millions of jobs so long as we stop asking them to do things like pay taxes and not pollute the air.
Can't wait for the second half!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Santorum's answer on vaccinations was a little bizarre, I have no idea what he meant.
He sort of explained that he support vaccines, and then argued against them unless parents want them? I don't know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The debate on defense was actually really interesting. Rick Santorum parroted the classic line about Muslim radicals. They hate us because we're free. When Ron Paul tried to explain the PR system behind extremism, he was booed for it. I think that's extremely telling. Extremely telling.
It speaks to a certain lack of acknowledgment of the complexity of the situation. It'd be nice if it was as simple as all that. We're fighting an implacable foe that hates all things free. But that ignores the very PR machine that people like Osama used for decades to recruit people. Ron Paul is right, it was about troops on Arab soil, support for Israel, and other concrete complaints, not some vague notion of hating freedom. Isn't the Arab Spring proof of, at the very least, a desire for a kind of freedom of choice? You can disagree with the reasons, but disagreeing that they even have reasons makes this an impossible debate, and it makes it impossible for people like Rick Santorum to solve the problem.
He never misses a chance to go after Ron Paul. This is the first time I've ever heard Ron Paul booed for it, but he also got cheers at the end too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I caught some line on the TV last night while I was at the gym, on some NBC talk show- apparently the reason we are in DEBT is because RADICAL ISLAM attacked AMERICA, and so we SPENT ALOT OF MONEY, to make ourselves FREE.
This was to do with personal debt, btw. We bought houses because of 9/11.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well didn't Bush tell us that the most patriotic thing we could do after 9/11 was go out and spend money to help the economy?
Really though, what you're talking about is something Ron Paul mentioned, but from a different angle. He said that in the response to 9/11, we've spent ourselves into a pit and reduced our freedoms, basically arguing that our response to the attacks did more damage than the attacks themselves. Lots of people cheered, lots booed.
I don't know if that was their intention or not, but it was certainly the effect.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I really love Paul's ability to cut to the heart of the matter like that.
It's too bad he has to always immediately spoil the effect with a batshit "solution".
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I really love Paul's ability to cut to the heart of the matter like that.
It's too bad he has to always immediately spoil the effect with a batshit "solution".
Lol... yeah, pretty much. He can be spot on and way out in la la land within the same sentence!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some people would find it impressive that he can go from Truth to Crazy in three seconds flat. He's the Ferrari of the Right.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
So, I didn't get to listen to the debate last night, but I did hear a few excerpts this morning that I thought were funny.
First, I thought it was hilarious that Bachman wouldn't let go of the "personal choice" part of the vaccine issue. That executive order had SO MUCH about it you could pick apart from so many different angles including corruption, fiscal responsibility, and respect of legislative process. Instead, she focuses on "injecting little girls against their parent's wishes", which is just so completely untrue. It takes, literally, about 3 minutes to exempt your child from any vaccine in the state of Texas. Schools are required to be upfront about this, and during the whole scandal you couldn't read a single article on the subject or listen to a single TV story on the subject without being told exactly how simple it was to not get your daughter the shot. It's just so incredibly obvious that she doesn't care a fig about the truth and is only looking for good rhetoric. But I guess we already knew that!
Of course, Perry's response was also pretty telling. He was offended that she thought he could be bought for $5,000. His tone as much as said that there IS a number he could be bought for (and probably was bought for) but not a measly 5 grand! In the end, this is what scares me most about Perry. Perry isn't in this for anyone but himself, and he never has been... Perry is for Perry, period!
What I was really shocked about were the reactions to the border fence thing. First off, I was surprised to hear Perry so vehemently opposed to it, since he hasn't always been. Secondly, I was shocked to hear Huntsman call him a traitor for that view! Huntsman has seemed like the most reasonable one up until now, and it seems a little strange to go up to traitor for not wanting a fence - since there are very good arguments against the border fence.
Of course, it was just as shocking to hear Perry defending the in state tuition for illegal immigrants (or just their US citizen children, I wasn't clear on this point from the snips I heard) by calling it "The American Way". This is definitely a new tack for him. He must be scrambling to be able to put some sort of defined ideology to his record.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Some people would find it impressive that he can go from Truth to Crazy in three seconds flat. He's the Ferrari of the Right.
Hah... I like that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Secondly, I was shocked to hear Huntsman call him a traitor for that view!
Huntsman was joking. It was a riff off of Perry calling Bernanke a traitor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It wasn't a very good joke. But then, it wasn't nearly as bad as his terrible Nirvana reference.
quote:Of course, Perry's response was also pretty telling. He was offended that she thought he could be bought for $5,000. His tone as much as said that there IS a number he could be bought for (and probably was bought for) but not a measly 5 grand! In the end, this is what scares me most about Perry. Perry isn't in this for anyone but himself, and he never has been... Perry is for Perry, period!
Lots of commentators have noted that Bachmann could have really landed a blow if she'd asked "Well then what is your price Governor?" after he said that.
From what I can tell, all Perry really said there was "I'm not a prostitute, I'm an escort!"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It wasn't a very good joke. But then, it wasn't nearly as bad as his terrible Nirvana reference.
quote:Of course, Perry's response was also pretty telling. He was offended that she thought he could be bought for $5,000. His tone as much as said that there IS a number he could be bought for (and probably was bought for) but not a measly 5 grand! In the end, this is what scares me most about Perry. Perry isn't in this for anyone but himself, and he never has been... Perry is for Perry, period!
Lots of commentators have noted that Bachmann could have really landed a blow if she'd asked "Well then what is your price Governor?" after he said that.
From what I can tell, all Perry really said there was "I'm not a prostitute, I'm an escort!"
I don't think that's fair. I saw Perry as saying more "Really? You're saying that a major reason I did this was so I could get 5000 measly dollars?" It wasn't disgust at the amount, but rather that resting an accusation of him taking bribes for such a paltry amount was ridiculous. To clarify, imagine if he got say $5 dollars out of it and people accused him of making his decision largely on that $5.
I think Gov Perry is a self-serving intellectual lightweight who would be extremely bad for this country, but that particular criticism seems really weak and biased to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is what people are saying. That Gov. Perry's response indicated that the amount of the bribe was paltry not that any bribe would be unacceptable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Secondly, I was shocked to hear Huntsman call him a traitor for that view!
Huntsman was joking. It was a riff off of Perry calling Bernanke a traitor.
Joke or not, I find it very disturbing how common it has become for conservative to call those who disagree with them "traitors". Labeling those who disagree "traitors" and "enemies of the state", is one of the classic characteristics of authoritarian regimes. It seems that conservatives have rejected the idea of the "loyal opposition".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that is what people are saying. That Gov. Perry's response indicated that the amount of the bribe was paltry not that any bribe would be unacceptable.
Look I dislike Perry a lot, and would never vote for him. But every single candidate will be sent money either by poor Americans who send a few dollars, or by the rich who cut cheques in the thousands. Perry's point was he is given millions of dollars by donors, and to suggest that $5,000 of that was the lynchpin that made up his mind, is ludicrous.
If five people all give me $5, and urge me to vote for A, B, C, D, and E. A 6th hands me $1, and you I later vote for F, an initiative the 6th donor feels strongly about, it makes no sense to then conclude I was swayed by the 6th donor.
With all the criticisms one can make about Perry, including the apt example that he is a career politician buried in the concept of "pay for play" politics, that $5,000 from Merck is not going to be the route you should take.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Secondly, I was shocked to hear Huntsman call him a traitor for that view!
Huntsman was joking. It was a riff off of Perry calling Bernanke a traitor.
Joke or not, I find it very disturbing how common it has become for conservative to call those who disagree with them "traitors". Labeling those who disagree "traitors" and "enemies of the state", is one of the classic characteristics of authoritarian regimes. It seems that conservatives have rejected the idea of the "loyal opposition".
Ambassador Huntsman agrees with you. That was kind of the point of his joke. He made it about Governor Perry, who used it seriously, about Gov. Perry's deviation from the mainstream Republican platform of strong anti-illegal immigration measures.
He was using it to satirize calling people traitors when they disagree with you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree that's what Huntsman was doing. I wonder, though, if it wasn't too subtle for most people to pick up on. Huntsman tried to be clever a couple times and I think it either fell flat or went over people's heads.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It wasn't a very good joke. But then, it wasn't nearly as bad as his terrible Nirvana reference.
quote:Of course, Perry's response was also pretty telling. He was offended that she thought he could be bought for $5,000. His tone as much as said that there IS a number he could be bought for (and probably was bought for) but not a measly 5 grand! In the end, this is what scares me most about Perry. Perry isn't in this for anyone but himself, and he never has been... Perry is for Perry, period!
Lots of commentators have noted that Bachmann could have really landed a blow if she'd asked "Well then what is your price Governor?" after he said that.
From what I can tell, all Perry really said there was "I'm not a prostitute, I'm an escort!"
I don't think that's fair. I saw Perry as saying more "Really? You're saying that a major reason I did this was so I could get 5000 measly dollars?" It wasn't disgust at the amount, but rather that resting an accusation of him taking bribes for such a paltry amount was ridiculous. To clarify, imagine if he got say $5 dollars out of it and people accused him of making his decision largely on that $5.
I think Gov Perry is a self-serving intellectual lightweight who would be extremely bad for this country, but that particular criticism seems really weak and biased to me.
I agree with kate. He worded his response VERY poorly. Don't get me wrong, I agree with his underlying message, that obviously he didn't make a decision based on such a ridiculously small sum, but that's not really the point. He worded it in such a way as to suggest that it's ridiculous to assume he made the choice based on that small amount, but had the amount been higher, he wouldn't have been insulted by the accusation, meaning what, he'd go for it? It was a bizarre sort of response. He should have just taken umbrage at the suggestion of bribery and dismissed it.
I was mostly having fun with his wording. I think a lot of people interpreted it the same way I did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that is what people are saying. That Gov. Perry's response indicated that the amount of the bribe was paltry not that any bribe would be unacceptable.
Look I dislike Perry a lot, and would never vote for him. But every single candidate will be sent money either by poor Americans who send a few dollars, or by the rich who cut cheques in the thousands. Perry's point was he is given millions of dollars by donors, and to suggest that $5,000 of that was the lynchpin that made up his mind, is ludicrous.
If five people all give me $5, and urge me to vote for A, B, C, D, and E. A 6th hands me $1, and you I later vote for F, an initiative the 6th donor feels strongly about, it makes no sense to then conclude I was swayed by the 6th donor.
With all the criticisms one can make about Perry, including the apt example that he is a career politician buried in the concept of "pay for play" politics, that $5,000 from Merck is not going to be the route you should take.
I don't know that he is more or less influenced by donations than most other politicians.* He just worded it poorly.
*I think that almost all politicians are far too influenced by their big donors and that this is a big chunk of what is wrong with our political system and the US as a whole.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
It was the tone in Perry's voice, and his word choice, that made it sound like he was saying he would take a larger bribe. I merely BELIEVE he's more prone to being influenced by monetary pressure because of some of the somewhat erratic things he seems to have done as governor. He doesn't always stay consistent on stances and will come out from left field with something that is, very suddenly, an extreme priority. Of course, I believe that most politician's are pretty shady, just that Perry is towards the worse end of the spectrum.
I'm glad to hear that Huntsman's comment was a joke. I didn't hear that comment as a soundbite, only from the reporter, so I couldn't hear tone. It didn't really seem to jive with other things I'd heard about him, so I was a little confused.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Oh. I also find it funny that the Texas Comptrollers office just published a website that details all the economic impacts of Federal Regulation on Texas. This was something that was desperately needed "for the Texan public" to understand what federal regulations were doing to us, and has "nothing to do" with the Governors campaign.
When asked why it only detailed out the expenses of Federal Regulation and didn't even attempt to capture any offsetting savings (like decreased public healthcare dollars) she said that those things were not the responsibility of her office, only the costs were.
I'm not always for regulations. Honestly, charging people a ton of money just to keep some sort of rare salamander alive doesn't always seem like a good deal to me. However, I have a hard time believing that this "Keeping Texas First" project just happened to need to come to the spotlight right now!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not against a national sales tax, or VAT, as a debt-reduction method to start hacking away at the ballooning debt. I think we should have a 1% sales tax and every year the money MUST go to pay down the debt, and we should have it for ten years.
Something that might be interesting
quote:This is a frustrating state of affairs for an economist who would like to see governments do more to reduce poverty and inequality. Outside Canada, it is generally accepted that high VAT rates are an essential component of social policy: see the accompanying graph. Of the 21 OECD countries that spend more on social programs than does Canada, 19 have higher VAT rates. There are no rich countries that have pulled off the trick of sustaining high levels of social spending with low VAT rates.
Concerns about the regressive nature of the GST/HST can be addressed by improving the system of credits that compensate low-income households. Indeed, research suggests that the most effective way of reducing poverty and inequality is – surprisingly enough – to provide low-income households with more money. (See, for example, here, here, here and here.)
One of the more convenient features of the GST/HST is that it has already set up the infrastructure for transferring income to low-income households. The GST/HST tax credit can be used as a basis for an even more ambitious system of transfers at almost no additional administrative cost. All that is required is the political will to use it.
I am all for a national sales tax. I just don't think it will ever happen.
To me it makes sense. Those that buy more or higher ticket items will pay more in taxes, while those that do not buy as much will be taxed less.
The problem is there will always be the argument that it would be a huge tax increase on the poor, who right now do not pay any taxes.
It would be a tax increase, but if we want to be fair to everyone, I think this is the best way to do it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The problem is there will always be the argument that it would be a huge tax increase on the poor, who right now do not pay any taxes.
The poor pay sales taxes, property taxes, and social security and medicare taxes. You know this. Please stop lying.
Luckily, a VAT (doing a sales tax, which is a huge pain to enforce, though they produce nearly identical consumer-facing results, is a bad idea) is easy to make less regressive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine, I have to ask (well I don't have to, of course, but I'm deeply curious): those are all thoroughly conservative talking points about a proposed national sales tax, and they're also very well-known and easily rejected points. As fugu says, the poor do pay taxes. Remember your first job when you were just a teenager or so? Taxes on that-and that's before you even arrive at other things, taxes that are simply a fact of living.
I don't say you're lying, but I do say that your idea here is...well, badly, factually wrong and it's not at all difficult to have known that beforehand. It makes it difficult to take you seriously in a given political discussion, when you toe such an easily disproven party line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The problem is there will always be the argument that it would be a huge tax increase on the poor, who right now do not pay any taxes.
Myth. Income tax is not the only tax.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The problem is there will always be the argument that it would be a huge tax increase on the poor, who right now do not pay any taxes.
They wish.
I'm kind of with Rakeesh here — are you getting your pointers and facts from some kind of talking point bulletin list, or from conservative mailings and push polls, or from saturation in heavily conservative online communities? Because you are seemingly always, always, saturated with the season's paper-thin party line agitprop, and I would think you would want to be fundamentally concerned about that.
Because, well, again what Rakeesh said. Your signal-to-"Facts" ratio is redlining over time.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Lemme take a look at my paycheck... Oh my, where did that 60 dollars go? They list axnumber of the taxes I paid right there on my paycheck!
Then, I go to the store. To buy gas. Etc. Oh look, a not-inconsiderable amount goes to taxes!
I had to get my tabs, necessary to not get pulled over by the cops, renewed. Oh look. More taxes...
And that's just a single day! Well over a hundred dollars, easily 20% if that paycheck... Gone in taxes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, but see, the rich have to pay those taxes too, so it's fair. It's fair that this is 20% of your paycheck and 0.1 percent of mine. We all have to pay the same, so it's totally fair. You should pay income taxes too, because I have to do it. That's fair. Fairness is easily defined in purely numerical terms, and has nothing to do with the exigencies of equitable living and economic forces that keep our society in peace and prosperity. Fairness is a number I am more comfortable with.
Also, minimum fine for a red light violation should be 800 dollars. 100% of your paycheck and 1% of mine. Also fair. Fair and square. And if you don't have the cash handy right this second, just double it next month. Because fair's fair's fair.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, but see, the rich have to pay those taxes too, so it's fair. It's fair that this is 20% of your paycheck and 0.1 percent of mine. We all have to pay the same, so it's totally fair. You should pay income taxes too, because I have to do it. That's fair. Fairness is easily defined in purely numerical terms, and has nothing to do with the exigencies of equitable living and economic forces that keep our society in peace and prosperity. Fairness is a number I am more comfortable with.
Fairness is also a word I am more comfortable with so I am going to vote in favor of using a system people call "Fairtax." It has fair right in the name. How do you get any more fair than that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, there's the rumored Fair-Squared Tax, which of course would be *even more* fair!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm fascinated by the recent language coming out of Boehner and Cantor about how "paying their fair share" necessitates a tax hike on the POOR. Boehner especially has been pushing the concept that poor people don't pay taxes, and that everyone should "have skin in the game." Apparently being poor means you aren't invested in the country. That's rich. At the moment it's just rhetoric, but I'd love don't really see how he can reconcile even the rhetoric with his "no tax hikes EVER" rhetoric from over this past year. After almost derailing the country's economy to protect the wealthy from tax hikes, will he actually have the balls to propose a tax hike on the poor? I gleefully await the results.
Interestingly, the Fair Tax DID come up at the debate this past Monday. Someone asked if they supported it, and I think Herman Cain took the answer. He actually said no, because it was too regressive. That was a tiny bit of a surprise, because every description of the Fair Tax I've ever heard has included a pretty generous payment system to reimburse lower income folks. But I appreciated that he recognized that a FLAT tax is regressive.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh but I do blame the democrats for even countenancing the idea that tax rates are based on ideas of "fairness." The actual consequences of a progressive tax system are too far removed from any given taxpayer for anyone to be really comfortable with the idea that they *owe* more even though they *earn* more. The idea that they are able to earn as a consequence of good governance, well, the Republicans have thrown that idea right out the window- so it's no wonder they don't get it.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I recently had a friend (and I actually do like this woman) complain that she was paying over $8,000 a year for her kids to go to public school, while all of those other people who just move in and out and RENT all the time don't pay anything. It's a very common misconception around here that property taxes only impact the wealthy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, well, see, the renters pay the owners, and then the owners pay their own money for the taxes. It's totally different money. They even keep it in separate pockets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man, I
quote:"Bachmann: It's ok to spread lies about vaccines because I never said I'm a doctor After claiming that the life-saving HPV vaccine causes "mental retardation," the candidate declines to apologize."
"I didn't make any statements that would indicate I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist, or making any conclusions about the drug one way or the other," she said, adding she was merely relating the concerns of a woman who was "very distraught" and who supported her view that Perry's actions were wrong.
Asked specifically if she would apologize for the HPV comments, Bachmann said, "I'm not going to answer that question."
this is even better than 'FDR wrecked the economy with the Hoot-Smalley tariffs.'
(yes, 'hoot-smalley')
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Boehner in recent days has drawn a "line in the sand" with the Super Committee. He warned them that any tax increases would be unacceptable.
This has worked for him in the past, but I think he's running into troublesome territory. What will be do if they are included? Vote it down and deal with billions in defense cuts? No, so long as it isn't heinous, he'll have to go along with it.
Democrats should have the upper hand in these negotiations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: You'd think that, but the "No increase in taxes!" Line is extremely compelling for some reason. As if they are really fighting to keep all our money in our pockets, and away from government thieves.
Despite all the screwed up crises that were immenent when default was a real possibility, I don't think the Republicans were hurt, rather that entire Congress was perceived as being unable to get anything done, and that wasn't really Republicans fault even primarily. The other sentiment, "They are all screwed" up is also pervasive enough to make specific criticisms of a party almost meaningless. The only thing that seems to matter to voters by and large is which party is in the presidency and the majority in Congress when the economy is doing well or poorly.
If a Republican were to defeat Obama in 2012, and they held on to their majorities in the Congress, and the economy continued to tank, that is the only scenario, short of the Republicans becoming the legitimate "secessionist party" where I could see Democrats getting votes in any serious number. Otherwise, it's the pendulum, and neither party will make sweeping gains for any long period of time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Democrats should have the upper hand in these negotiations.
Democrats rarely have the upper hand in negotiations where republicans stand to gain from filibustering the country into complete dysfunction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah but this time they don't have that advantage. If they shoot down the deal, then massive automatic cuts to defense kick in. Those cuts are anathema to Republicans, and Republicans can hardly point the finger at Democrats when the Dems will be pushing a balanced compromise that polls show most people agree with.
The key is Democrats being willing to stand up to them. If they cave, GOP is handed a gift. If they hang on, the GOP stands to lose from a political and a policy standpoint. Plus, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire soon, and all Democrats have to do is sit back and let it happen. Doing nothing in these cases hurts the GOP, so their plan of dysfunction backfires for once.
This one is the Democrats' to lose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I await with horrified curiosity to see how they'll snatch defeat or stalemate from the jaws of victory *this* time. I wish I weren't so cynical, but when it comes to directly standing up to GOP/TP garbage like this-especially when Republicans can rally around their favorite sound bite-well:(
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If a Republican were to defeat Obama in 2012, and they held on to their majorities in the Congress, and the economy continued to tank, that is the only scenario, short of the Republicans becoming the legitimate "secessionist party" where I could see Democrats getting votes in any serious number. Otherwise, it's the pendulum, and neither party will make sweeping gains for any long period of time.
Yet, sadly, Republicans continue to pursue vastly different Economic agendas when in power as compared to when out of power. That's how they managed to position the nation at the edge of a debt spiral while in power, and then *use* tht debt as a campaign issue when they were ousted. There is nothing fiscally conservative about GOP policy when they control spending.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I await with horrified curiosity to see how they'll snatch defeat or stalemate from the jaws of victory *this* time. I wish I weren't so cynical, but when it comes to directly standing up to GOP/TP garbage like this-especially when Republicans can rally around their favorite sound bite-well:(
It only takes one Democrat in the Super Committee to cave and a unified GOP bloc can pass their bill. For the most part Pelosi and Reid sent some backbones to the Committee, but both sides also sent a couple people willing to compromise. It's really a coin flip.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Democrats should have the upper hand in these negotiations.
Democrats rarely have the upper hand in negotiations where republicans stand to gain from filibustering the country into complete dysfunction.
I think the saving grace of the situation may be that reality is slowly catching up with the GOP strategy. People realize, slowly, that they have essentially no interest in stability or responsible governance. The trick is for the dems to continue pursuing a balanced approach until the GOP has revealed that *no* scenario exists in which they are willing to adopt a sound economic plan, because they don't want a sound economy- they want to loot the nation of every last dollar they can.
I do wonder how many times the dems can prove that the GOP is not interested in stability over political and personal gain before their base starts to get wise- those in the base who actually care.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I await with horrified curiosity to see how they'll snatch defeat or stalemate from the jaws of victory *this* time. I wish I weren't so cynical, but when it comes to directly standing up to GOP/TP garbage like this-especially when Republicans can rally around their favorite sound bite-well:(
It only takes one Democrat in the Super Committee to cave and a unified GOP bloc can pass their bill. For the most part Pelosi and Reid sent some backbones to the Committee, but both sides also sent a couple people willing to compromise. It's really a coin flip.
Dems have proved incapable of hanging on thus far against GOP brinkmanship. There's no reason to expect this will be any different.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, one advantage is that these are private negotiations.
Another is that the cuts largely will come to defense if this falls through, and Dems can sell that to their liberal base a lot more easily than the GOP can to their conservative base.
Those two things might give them some backbone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah but this time they don't have that advantage. If they shoot down the deal, then massive automatic cuts to defense kick in. Those cuts are anathema to Republicans, and Republicans can hardly point the finger at Democrats when the Dems will be pushing a balanced compromise that polls show most people agree with.
The key is Democrats being willing to stand up to them. If they cave, GOP is handed a gift. If they hang on, the GOP stands to lose from a political and a policy standpoint. Plus, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire soon, and all Democrats have to do is sit back and let it happen. Doing nothing in these cases hurts the GOP, so their plan of dysfunction backfires for once.
This one is the Democrats' to lose.
Cuts to defense are not nearly as anathema after ten years of fighting two expensive wars. There are many periods in American history where we've allowed our military to stagnate, and crumble, and then when the next conflict comes, spending twice as much money building everything again.
As for the Bush tax cuts expiring, et al, well what's to stop the Republicans from insisting on more cuts, demanding the Bush tax cuts be extended (for the good of all Americans they will say.) and simply playing chicken again with the Democrats? They'll continue to propose smoke screen counter plans, and say the Democrats refuse to play ball, when in reality everybody knows how it's really going. It worked once, and there's no reason to suspect it can't again. I'm sure they believe it will, and unless something convinces them it can't, why wouldn't they go that route?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't much matter. It's still a political defeat, twice over. Republicans have said no defense cuts, because it'll weaken America's ability to defend itself from our future Martian overlords. You're making a reasonable argument, but what does that have to do with anything? They've said no tax cuts, over their dead bodies.
And yet, despite their protestations, both things could possibly go through. It's the sort of thing that will piss off their base and energize the Democratic base. These are morale boosters. And so what if Republicans do demand more cuts? The debt ceiling issue has been pushed off for more than a year. If Democrats put forward a couple of genuine plans that have major cuts, and no tax hikes even, the GOP will continue to marginalize themselves before the election.
Some of it depends on the Dems having a backbone...but most of this depends on the Dems simply playing the same game of dimwitted defense they always have.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think you are underestimating the fallacious notion that something that worked once will surely work again. Political strategies are only abandoned when a more effective strategy is found, or more commonly when it fails utterly.
Brinksmanship seems to hurt the entire system, rather than the Republican party, and with Obama in the presidency that's perceived as a net plus for Republicans.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Brinkmanship hurts the entire system, which helps Republicans in the short term, because they are encouraging dysfunctional government and profit from dysfunctional government. In the short term.
In the long term, it's continuing to turn them into a zombie dinosaur ethical black hole. Eventually, and perhaps in quite a long time, they will be completely off the political map. Their goal is to do as much damage while they are on it as they possible can do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? What fallacious notion?
We shouldn't forget that even as Republicans seem to be actively pursuing dysfunction, they are also simultaneously pursuing their policy initiatives AND getting them passed, which is why their constituents are so fired up. So what happens when half that equation falls apart?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lyrhawn: Like I said earlier, political strategies, changes in two ways. A better one is found, or the current one fails completely. But it is also true that stupid policies that are perceived to have worked, even in the short term, can become almost religiously adhered to.
Mitch McConnell, after the debt ceiling fiasco said something to effect of, "the debt ceiling has redefined the playbook, and raising the debt ceiling will never be routine procedure again." It's no different in that regard to trying to get legislation passed in exchange for not obstructing a presidential cabinet appointment. Who got burned in the debt ceiling talks? No one person really, the entire Congress took the heat, and as a bonus they made Obama look ineffectual. Sure the newspapers you and I read all rightly pointed out the Republicans as villain in a room of bad guys, but that narrative hasn't appeared to gain any traction with voters, the presidential election will in part say something about it. But the Republicans were able to spin their stupid game into a brave cause, where they refused to raise taxes, and demanded spending cuts no matter what the Democrats said.
When the time limit arrives, they'll (I'm predicting) get Bush tax cut extensions, and cuts in spending, even in defense if that is the casualty this time (and by casualty I mean the unwitting victim, not that defense cutting or cutting in general is always an offense).
A near disaster is just not even close to changing behavior than an actual disaster. When somebody texts on their cellphone and nearly slams into a car because they aren't looking, they get a bit of a jolt, and for some people they say, "Hell with that, never again." But most people think about it for a day or two, and then it's right back to doing it until they actually suffer some personal loss for the behavior.
Nobody in Congress lost anything tangible to them with their behavior, so they will by and large act just as they have been acting for the foreseeable future. What makes it worse is for much of the Republican party they will see it as, "We played chicken and the Democrats blinked, Democrats will always lose at chicken."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That JanitorBlade is so dreamy when he talks politics. <3!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You need proportional representation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, you need a better understanding of US history. Well, you don't actually unless you want to participate in conversations like this. There is a reason that part of our representation is not proportional and why that suggestion (that you keep making) is foolish.
See: Great Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Proportional representation is the only fair and democratic way to govern. The only "disadvantage" I've seen cited is that it puts the balance of power in the hands of fringe parties who can now finally get seats. I do not consider this a disadvantage.
It doesn't matter what the history of it was, it's clearly stupid to have now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, you need to understand that the US is a group of states as well as a country. Purely proportional representation disadvantages small states. So not really fair at all.
Nor do you say how proportional representation would solve the problems we are discussing. Right now, as far as I am concerned, the House is a worse problem than the Senate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But the states shouldn't matter, demote to provinces or something. They have way too much clout. Your no longer a collection of "sovereign" states, your a singular nation now, act like it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. It's just that simple.
And again, how is that better?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Perhaps you should see about fitting fifty states into Canada. We are after all the superpower here.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry if this is a retread, but when did Rick Perry say he was chosen by God to be president?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think he's said the phrase, "God has called me to run for President." But it's implied in some of his statements.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Blayne, you need to understand that the US is a group of states as well as a country. Purely proportional representation disadvantages small states. So not really fair at all.
Nor do you say how proportional representation would solve the problems we are discussing. Right now, as far as I am concerned, the House is a worse problem than the Senate.
How so? The Senate is a body where a single person can (and does!) literally derail the entire Federal government.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That mostly manifests with appointments. The House is the more common holdup for productive forms of most legislation in recent history.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Again, how so? Legislation dies in the Senate after passing the House far more often than the other way around.
Perhaps that is simply because everyone in the House KNOWS that it won't go anywhere in the Senate.
Regardless, the appointments process alone is enough to consider the Senate a prime source of dysfunction. The sheer number of empty positions in the government is staggering.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The problem in the senate is the now ironclad filibuster. They did away with that decades go in the house.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Kinda related
quote:Is Canada's Electoral System Institutionally Racist?
It is erroneously believed by some that the original U.S. constitution had a clause decreeing that a black man was "worth" only 60% of a white man. The three-fifths compromise, rather, was a mechanism for determining how slaves (not blacks, though in the 1770s only 8% of the black population were 'free', so there was little difference) should be counted in determining how many representatives each state received in the House.
Canada's electoral system, however, does inadvertently make the votes from voters of some races worth less than others.
quote:There are 13 ridings where 10% of the population is "Black" There are 13 ridings where 20% of the population is "Chinese" There are 13 ridings where 20% of the population is "West Asian"
quote:Value of a Vote in a "Black" Riding vs. a "Non-Black" Riding: 90% ... Value of a Vote in a "Chinese" Riding vs. a "Non-Chinese" Riding: 82% ... Value of a Vote in a "West Asian" Riding vs. a "Non-West Asian" Riding: 80%
(most minorities and/or immigrants generally tend to cluster in urban areas, away from Quebec, and away from "legacy" provinces which have lower bounds on the number of ridings they can have)
I wonder how you would go about calculating it for the US equivalents. Would you need to calculate it separately for the senate, president, and congress?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It seems to me that the design of the electoral college was meant that larger states wouldnt be unduly more influencial on the federal level back when they had far more effective sovereign powers than they do nowadays. In the civil war kentucky was neutral, states can't do that nowadays.
As such, since the power and role of states has been so eclipsed by the federal government that I would find it nessasary, just and practical to do away with it altogether and institute proportional representation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: As such, since the power and role of states has been so eclipsed by the federal government
A) Not really true. B) To the degree that it is true, many people are against the erosion of states' rights/powers, and would fight hard against anything that increased that erosion or enshrined it in law.
As Kate said, you don't know/understand enough US history to be making these arguments and expect to be taken seriously. You can't just dismiss hundreds of years of history because they are inconvenient.
Mucus, can you please define "riding" in this context? (And I assume that when you said "congress" you meant the House?)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A riding is a region that contains roughly 100,000 people (the number goes up or down depending on population shifts, but riding distribution is lagged, which is what causes the disparities in values). A riding elects one MP to Parliament (and one to the provincial legislature, but the above calculation is for federal). Based on the party system, the leader of the party with a plurality often becomes the Prime Minister.
So the disparity basically ends up devaluing certain votes in choosing a PM (and the Senate eventually, since those are appointed by the PM).
I was just musing that one could calculate the same thing for the States, but I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics to detail how.
(Guess: The calculation would have to be done three times, once for riding ~= state for electoral college, once for riding ~= congressional district for congresspeople, and once for however senators are elected(?))
(House, I think, but there are no housemen or housewomen, so I'm confused)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It seems to me that the design of the electoral college was meant that larger states wouldnt be unduly more influencial on the federal level back when they had far more effective sovereign powers than they do nowadays. In the civil war kentucky was neutral, states can't do that nowadays.
As such, since the power and role of states has been so eclipsed by the federal government that I would find it nessasary, just and practical to do away with it altogether and institute proportional representation.
The electoral college had far less to to with the big state/little state thing than with the Founders not trusting regular voters. Back then, when you actually voted for an elector and not a candidate, it was assumed that the elector was just plain smarter and more capable than the average voter, and THAT was a guy you could trust to vote intelligently. Originally, we didn't directly elect US senators either, they were chosen by state legislatures. The early election system was clearly designed with a wary eye toward the common citizen. It took a good century or more for us to really start moving past that to direct elections, which is why the electoral college is an anachronism.
You often hear now that the electoral college protects little states who would otherwise be ignored by candidates, but I have to ask, how many campaign stops did Obama and McCain make in Montana? in Alaska? in Wyoming? The electoral college DID give them more power per person in voting than those states would have otherwise had, but it does almost nothing for them in terms of modern campaign strategy. And frankly, I don't think they should get even that protection. The point is supposed to be to make sure they don't get trampled, but it ends up being that their votes are technically worth MORE than a vote in California or Texas. Time to switch to the popular vote.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Time to switch to the popular vote.
Pretty sure I disagree. And I live in one of those vote-devalued states. While I support some changes, I am unconvinced that a straight popular vote is the way to go.
Mucus, thanks. Members of the House of Representatives are called representatives. Members of the Senate are senators. Both are called congressmen/-women/-critters, but the former more often than the latter, so I can understand your confusion.
Representatives each have a district that elects them. Senators are elected by the entire state, by straight popular vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Time to switch to the popular vote.
Pretty sure I disagree. And I live in one of those vote-devalued states. While I support some changes, I am unconvinced that a straight popular vote is the way to go.
I'm always interested to hear an opposing viewpoint from an intelligent opponent. Could you elaborate on why you feel that way?
What advantages do you derive from the electoral college that would be lost if we switched to a straight-up popular vote?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the reason for getting rid of the electoral college is less because of the over or undervalued votes but because of the winner take all problem. I would like the electoral votes to be distributed like they are in Maine and Nebraska.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, much too brain dead to formulate anything coherent on that. Short version: the last time we had a major discussion about electoral v. popular on Hatrack (probably a year or more back), I thought the pro-electoral folks made some good points.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would like the electoral votes to be distributed like they are in Maine and Nebraska.
I have no problem with this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The only problem I have with it is that because candidates would have to campaign in more states (a good thing) elections would be more expensive (a bad thing). In a perfect world, this change would be coupled with real campaign finance reform.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the reason for getting rid of the electoral college is less because of the over or undervalued votes but because of the winner take all problem. I would like the electoral votes to be distributed like they are in Maine and Nebraska.
Then why bother even having it? If all we're doing is pegging the popular vote to a share of electoral votes, it just seems like a wasteful, added step.
I agree with your later point about campaign expenses, to a degree. I think it would end up being far less of an added burden than you do. Currently most election money goes to the most expensive media markets. Simply put, Helena, Montana, Cheyenne, Wyoming and Anchorage, Alaska simply aren't expensive media markets. If candidates decided to campaign there, it could be done very cheaply. Relatively. Again though, I'm totally down with campaign finance reform. It would fix a host of problems.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right now, the candidates only have to campaign in swing states. The Chicago market (not cheap) saw practically no campaigning at all. If candidates had to battle over those suburban votes, they would have to spend money here.
I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Right now, the candidates only have to campaign in swing states.
Isn't this an argument for dumping the electoral college?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is an argument for either.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I have to admit that in years like this one, the electoral college pretty much ticks me off. My home state governor is running, which means that essentially my vote in any race he is in will mean virtually nothing. Simple familiarity of name almost guarantees he'll get all the votes my state has to offer.
However, getting rid of the electoral college sounds like it could be hell in practice, and lead to an increasing number of elections decided via lawsuit. I mean, we saw what the recount in Florida was like... can you imagine if we had to recount the entire nation???
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
The only one I chuckled at was Ron Paul.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Wait, are you proposing 50 states, 50 votes? Oh, I see. 473 districts, 473 votes. Or whatever number that is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:I am not wed to the electoral college but changing the winner take all rules could be done state by state and has a chance of actually happening.
Wait, are you proposing 50 states, 50 votes? Oh, I see. 473 districts, 473 votes. Or whatever number that is.
Obvious problem being that in most states, the entrenched majority party will want to hang onto ALL the votes from that state. California, for instance, has no incentive to split votes. The republican minority would still be too weak to attract candidates right away, and the dems would just be giving away a few conservative districts for essentially no increased attention.
On the other hand, long term, the idea that California votes might be had by either party would stir SOME interest in the fact that we are the state with the largest population and economy, and that despite this, there is next to ZERO campaigning going on in California. It would also give mderate republicans a chance of winning for once if the California primary actully Meant anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would want to get rid of it solely based on how it makes our presidential election extremely vulnerable to vote fraud in a few specific locations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Orincoro -
That's exactly the point of getting rid of the electoral college. States that are a virtual lock get almost no lip service from either candidate, and a GOP candidate has no problem ripping a solidly blue state because they KNOW they won't get the votes, and have no problem ignoring their concerns. But it's just as bad for a Democratic candidate who can tack to the center by throwing a solidly blue state overboard. The result is that no one there gets their issues heard.
I think it would go a long way toward getting rid of our ridiculous, dysfunctional, and harmful primary system. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose a total revamp of the primary system well before I chose getting rid of the electoral college. The former does far more damage than the latter.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The California Primary means a lot. I think. Doesn't it have a lot of delegates?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It does, but usually by that point, a field of 8 or 9 has already been winnowed down to a field of 2 or 3. The first four states are all about attrition. Most candidates who don't finish in the top two or three drop out after that.
California is also a pretty expensive place to campaign. Most candidates, especially the lower tier ones, would rather put their dollars to more use in early states. If they win an early state, they can gather momentum and cash going forward. States like California get very little attention until closer to election day, and even then, people rarely visit. Also, I believe, California does not have a winner-take-all delegate system, which makes winning it a sort of ho-hum affair when everyone is likely to pull support from the state as a whole.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: California does not have a winner-take-all delegate system
Incorrect. You get all 55, or nada.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: California does not have a winner-take-all delegate system
Incorrect. You get all 55, or nada.
Damn, I thought they were in the proportional state category. Thanks for the correction. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Not really. Having those four as the permanent filter through which the other 46 states are allowed to vote for the leftovers is absolutely awful. Those four states simply do NOT represent the rest of the country, especially Iowa and New Hampshire. It also forces candidates to kowtow to the demands of those specific states, to the detriment of the rest of us. By the time they make it out of the crucible, only a few candidates are still viable, and the race becomes a little more fair, a little more traditional, but it's the early voting states that are the biggest problem. They should NOT have a monopoly on the first primaries.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The California Primary means a lot. I think. Doesn't it have a lot of delegates?
It has more delegates than any other state. It also matters far less, because it is at the end of the primary season (now pushed up to super-duper tuesday), and it is utterly predictable- I would need to check the charts on this to confirm, but I believe it has gone with front runners in every election in recent memory. There's just nothing else to go on- our primary is determined by press coverage of other primaries.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The new calendar has 4 "traditional" states first, then the proportional states, and winner take all states last. That's some kind of move toward primary reform. Well, it's a change anyway.
Not really. Having those four as the permanent filter through which the other 46 states are allowed to vote for the leftovers is absolutely awful. Those four states simply do NOT represent the rest of the country, especially Iowa and New Hampshire. It also forces candidates to kowtow to the demands of those specific states, to the detriment of the rest of us. By the time they make it out of the crucible, only a few candidates are still viable, and the race becomes a little more fair, a little more traditional, but it's the early voting states that are the biggest problem. They should NOT have a monopoly on the first primaries.
Absolutely right. It's the most damned archaic thing about all this. That's just plain common sense. We need either a rotating or a lotary schedule of primary voting order, if we don't wish to have all the primaries at one time. The idea that a state with a population 1/20th of my own deciding who I get to cast a vote for is repugnant to me.
The SF Bay Area alone has about 4 times the population of New Hampshire. And NH gets to be the darling of American politics, why? Because they say so? They get to just keep pushing back their primary, year after year, and we just sit around going, oh well, what are you gonna do?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Among adults 18-34, the share of long-distance moves across state lines fell last year to roughly 3.2 million people, or 4.4 percent, the lowest level since World War II. For college graduates, who historically are more likely to relocate out of state, long-distance moves dipped to 2.4 percent.
Opting to stay put, roughly 5.9 million Americans 25-34 last year lived with their parents, an increase of 25 percent from before the recession. Driven by a record 1 in 5 young men who doubled up in households, men are now nearly twice as likely as women to live with their parents.
Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
The US should pay students to go to school.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh hey everybody, it's that time again!
quote:Somebody moderate enough to govern, which requires a willingness to compromise in order to get the best possible deal rather than no deal at all.
Somebody who is brave enough to do the politically unpopular things that are required to save the American economy -- a Ryan, a Boehner. They exist in the Republican Party. At the moment, they don't exist in the Democratic Party -- the Inquisition has burned them all.
Granted, the Ryan plan was 'politically unpopular' as well as 'entirely unpopular,' but,
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
Perhaps a growing number, but if that number exceeds triple digits I'd be surprised.
quote:The US should pay students to go to school.
No, it shouldn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh hey everybody, it's that time again!
quote:Somebody moderate enough to govern, which requires a willingness to compromise in order to get the best possible deal rather than no deal at all.
Somebody who is brave enough to do the politically unpopular things that are required to save the American economy -- a Ryan, a Boehner. They exist in the Republican Party. At the moment, they don't exist in the Democratic Party -- the Inquisition has burned them all.
Granted, the Ryan plan was 'politically unpopular' as well as 'entirely unpopular,' but,
What bizarro op-ed piece said that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll give you three guesses, but first here's another highlight from it:
quote:Obama is the most vulnerable incumbent since Jimmy Carter -- potentially more vulnerable. If the Republicans remember that It's The Economy, and nominate a candidate who is about the economy and nothing else, they will win in a landslide, sweep the Congress, and govern for at least two years, until they screw it up and lose a house or two.
But if the Republicans nominate a Rick Perry or a Michele Bachmann, there is every chance, after the media are through with them, that Obama will eke out a victory.
Republicans right now seem hellbent on nominated (sp) William Jennings Bryan. And if that name means nothing to you, that not only says something awful about your high school education, it also explains why history is so likely to repeat itself. William Jennings Bryan is the primary reason why the Democratic Party played dead between Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.
yes, only with the lockstep liberal media's devout aid could obama apparently 'eke out' a victory against Bachmann. Bachmann. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The economy being in a bad place is a huge advantage for any person seeking to unseat a sitting president.
He's absolutely right, that if the Republicans field an "economy candidate, with moderate conservative credentials" they could very easily win.
He's wrong that it would be hard for Obama to win against Bachmann, but Rick Perry could still prove a difficult opponent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course it would be the media's fault. Anyone who helps people access Bachmann's words would technically be at fault. She's far more powerful a candidate when she's talked about, rather than actually listened to.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He's absolutely right, that if the Republicans field an "economy candidate, with moderate conservative credentials" they could very easily win.
The presented delineations of who counts as 'moderates' who are 'willing to compromise' are, however, completely baffling. Most of it is, really.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The part about the inquisition made me shake my head, too. Which party is it that has talked about tests of ideological purity and exposing politicians who are "un-American" and has even invented an acronym for people who are allegedly members of the party in name only?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's what the Democrats did with Clinton and then with Obama -- they lied. They had a certified leftwinger in both cases, and then pretended he was a moderate. Electing Clinton, it was a matter of pounding Bush with the economy. Electing Obama, it was a matter of saying nothing ("change") and pounding McCain with Bush.
I do wonder, often, which of Obama's actual enacted policies Card is looking at to come to the conclusion that he (Obama) is a 'fanatical idealogue'. It's just so weird. I mean, Card is obviously much further to the right than I am, for all his pretense of Democratic party membership (for a long time I bought into his stance of 'one of the true remaining Actual Democrats', but I think that time has long since past-it becomes difficult to credit such claims when one is on record supporting so many, well, Republican candidates). So in the ordinary course of things, Card would find Obama quite a bit further left of center than I would. That's natural.
But 'fanatical idealogue'? I can't wrap my head around it. What political calculations arrive at that conclusion? They certainly don't involve looking at other fanatical left-wing ideologues and measuring their satisfaction with Obama, that's for sure.
quote:I think of Clinton's last six years as the Gingrich presidency, plus Monica. Clinton was a disaster for America (his foreign policy handed us Osama bin Laden), but Gingrich was a pretty good prime minister.
Wait, what? How on Earth doesn't Card also say 'Reagan's and Bush (Sr.)'s policies gave us ObL?
---------
I figure where better to discuss Card's words than in the Republican thread?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Another interesting thing I've read is that a growing number of students with 80k+ debts are learning. "Hey, wait a second, I can get a job somewhere foreign out of country and screw this debt."
Perhaps a growing number, but if that number exceeds triple digits I'd be surprised.
quote:The US should pay students to go to school.
No, it shouldn't.
Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
University and college education should be free or next-to-free, it's an investment. This "saving for college" bs Americans have accepted a truth is completely asinine.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
What's really amazing here is that just a few weeks ago our gracious host had talked about how President Obama had finally learned how to compromise, so maybe, if faced with Perry/Bachmann, we should keep him in office instead, with this pseudo-endorsement:
quote: At least Obama has learned how to compromise -- grudgingly, petulantly, like a toddler deprived of a toy, but he has learned to comply with reality now and then. Better the clown we have than the clowns piling out of the teeny-tiny car.
While I'm an Obama supporter (because I don't see him as ideological), and don't want Perry anywhere near the nomination . . . I'm morbidly curious to see what would be included in the political paragraphs of the review columns in the event of a Obama/Perry race.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. The options aren't restricted to "nearly free" and "100k+ debts".
edit: and there are many options for quality (compared against colleges in other countries) educations that are affordable, in the US. People are choosing options that pay more in part because of perceived value. The structure of US higher education financing is far from ideal, but choosing not to subsidize public education by fiat is no doubt one of the reasons that the US has the most, best schools in the world. It is wrong to assume that if we just started publicly funding education that level of performance would go away.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: The part about the inquisition made me shake my head, too. Which party is it that has talked about tests of ideological purity and exposing politicians who are "un-American" and has even invented an acronym for people who are allegedly members of the party in name only?
I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Yes they should. My vocational tuition is only 100$ a semester my University courses only cost about 800$ a semester how is it of any long term good to have students with 100k+ debts in the United States?
Wow, talk about a false dichotomy. The options aren't restricted to "nearly free" and "100k+ debts".
edit: and there are many options for quality (compared against colleges in other countries) educations that are affordable, in the US. People are choosing options that pay more in part because of perceived value. The structure of US higher education financing is far from ideal, but choosing not to subsidize public education by fiat is no doubt one of the reasons that the US has the most, best schools in the world. It is wrong to assume that if we just started publicly funding education that level of performance would go away.
How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
Top 50 in the world in one area of study? The US has numerous universities that are top 50 in the world in dozens of areas of study. Quite a few US mid-rank universities have an area they're top 50 in the world in. The universities you hold out as examples of your success, judged in the way you hold them out as examples of success, would only put them in the middle rank of US institutions. (Not that they aren't good schools; they are). The US has dozens and dozens of solid middle rank universities and colleges, and the quality of education at those institutions routinely trounces the quality of education at middle rank schools in the rest of the world. Not that there aren't stand out institutions in lots of other countries, just that we have more of them, and that more importantly, we have lots of solid schools below the stand out institutions.
Not subsidizing education as much has lead to US universities being able to secure top faculty, with top facilities, top support staff, and so forth. Some universities in countries with subsidized education put together similar formulas, but their money is drawn from the same pool as that at other institutions, meaning that less prestigious colleges and universities frequently end up unable to afford top talent and such in any area.
quote:I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
This is not a real argument. Given the relative quality of our top institutions, I am entirely comfortable with some schools not having bothered putting chargers in classrooms. Especially as, in many subject areas, the best teachers I've seen teach frequently ban the use of laptops.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
I'm not sure I follow you. I was saying that I think it's ironic that he talks about Democrats being burned by the inquisition, when I think it's the Republican Party that's having the inquisition.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: What's really amazing here is that just a few weeks ago our gracious host had talked about how President Obama had finally learned how to compromise, so maybe, if faced with Perry/Bachmann, we should keep him in office instead, with this pseudo-endorsement:
I find the two latest pieces somewhat reminiscent of when members of the GOP dare to criticize Rush - they make some relatively mild criticism and then the next day you see them humbly saying they were wrong. Similarly, in advocating for Romney, OSC made the obvious point that Obama might be preferable to someone like Bachmann. I assume that he faced some furious backlash and is now trying to demonstrate his conservative bonafides.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think Mr. Card was intending to contrast the Democrats in this regard with the Republicans. I'm sure he's aware that Republicans have tests of purity, in that same essay he uses the term RINO and indicates that only such a candidate could get elected for the Republicans, but probably wouldn't get the nomination.
You have to remember too that since he self identifies as a Democrat, he would only be exposed to people saying he's not really a Democrat because of beliefs X, Y, and Z. He wouldn't have somebody questioning his conservative credentials, or calling him a RINO since he's never called himself a conservative or a Republican.
I'm not sure I follow you. I was saying that I think it's ironic that he talks about Democrats being burned by the inquisition, when I think it's the Republican Party that's having the inquisition.
Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
But has the Democratic Party even had the sort of "inquisition" that he's talking about? That's what I'm getting at.
And I think he is at least implicitly saying, "The Republicans aren't as bad in this regard." The Democrats allegedly don't have anyone brave enough to do the right thing, because the inquisition has burned them all. The Republicans don't have this problem, in his opinion.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
OSC's earlier statements were about the PC-inquisition. I think the dems are the more PC party. However, I don't see that conforming to PC protocols has much relevance to making hard budgetary choices. For example, Obama has angered the liberal wing by offering cuts to entitlements. The Republicans have barely deviated, if at all, from Grover Norquist's ideology.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Right, and I'm saying that he isn't attempting to reform the Republican party, his beef is with the Democratic party for having ideological tests. He could have couched his criticism with "But the Republicans are far worse in this regard." But not opting to do so does not necessarily weaken his argument.
Being required to contrast everything wrong with a party by laying it against the other requires us to spend twice as much time writing things. It's why when I'm frustrated with Congress, I try to keep it apartisan. And when I criticize one party, I try not to worry about, "Oh but the other party is worse or also does X" because it dilutes the focus, IMHO.
But has the Democratic Party even had the sort of "inquisition" that he's talking about? That's what I'm getting at.
And I think he is at least implicitly saying, "The Republicans aren't as bad in this regard." The Democrats allegedly don't have anyone brave enough to do the right thing, because the inquisition has burned them all. The Republicans don't have this problem, in his opinion.
Displays of faith are certainly more and more anathema in the Democratic party. Look at how outraged everyone was when Bush said he prayed about policy decisions.
I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community. It felt like he felt exiled by liberals.
Bear in mind I'm not trying to make the argument that the left is more exclusive than the right. But there are certainly points of view that make one persona non-grata there. What bothers OSC and myself to some extent is that the left claps itself on the back for the being the party of pluralism and multi-culturalism, and while there are live and let lives folks there, when they laugh to scorn certain ideas it smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community.
Because it became well-publicized knowledge what he was saying about homosexuals and homosexuality.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I thought it was very telling when OSC indicated that he used to get letters from gay people telling him how much they appreciated his being sympathetic towards them in his writing. And now he is looked at with asbolute hatred by the gay community.
Because it became well-publicized knowledge what he was saying about homosexuals and homosexuality.
I'm not touching whether or not it was justified, I'm confining my remarks to how that statement gives a unique glimpse into the author's POV.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:How does subsidizing education result in "worse" education in your view? So far all I see is a broken system that encourages massive debts with nothing to force the price downwards. Concordia University and McGill in Quebec are both top 50 in the world in their respective categories (Business/Engineer and Medical) are we have it "subsidized".
Top 50 in the world in one area of study? The US has numerous universities that are top 50 in the world in dozens of areas of study. Quite a few US mid-rank universities have an area they're top 50 in the world in. The universities you hold out as examples of your success, judged in the way you hold them out as examples of success, would only put them in the middle rank of US institutions. (Not that they aren't good schools; they are). The US has dozens and dozens of solid middle rank universities and colleges, and the quality of education at those institutions routinely trounces the quality of education at middle rank schools in the rest of the world. Not that there aren't stand out institutions in lots of other countries, just that we have more of them, and that more importantly, we have lots of solid schools below the stand out institutions.
Not subsidizing education as much has lead to US universities being able to secure top faculty, with top facilities, top support staff, and so forth. Some universities in countries with subsidized education put together similar formulas, but their money is drawn from the same pool as that at other institutions, meaning that less prestigious colleges and universities frequently end up unable to afford top talent and such in any area.
quote:I'm also given to understand that we have sockets in our classrooms to plug stuff in and that there are plenty of "world" class universities in the states don't.
This is not a real argument. Given the relative quality of our top institutions, I am entirely comfortable with some schools not having bothered putting chargers in classrooms. Especially as, in many subject areas, the best teachers I've seen teach frequently ban the use of laptops.
But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would like to see community colleges and state schools better funded, but if private want to charge an arm and a leg, that's their deal. In Arizona, it seemed like cutting from the university was a great place to make cuts. I remember one year the campaign was no more than 4, as in only cut their budget by 4%. There was no let's increase or even keep constant, just a hope that the cuts wouldn't be too deep.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
Healthcare and Education are completely different industries. Arguing against subsidies (or more correctly, a subsidy driven system) in education is not equivalent to arguments against health care reform. The arguments against one are the other are hardly identical, because the implications of one or the other are entirely different.
Deal with the implications of the argument, don't dredge up associations with other issues that are too different to be dealt with in one discussion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But this is virtually indentical to republican healthcare arguments, because its not subsidized you say its "better" but to me its clearly overpriced for diminishing returns. Just how many of your "several" top fifty is because of simply population mass? you have over 350 million people to our 33 million.
First, it isn't remotely identical to Republicans healthcare arguments. It isn't even parallel. Please try to deal with the evidence honestly.
Overpriced for diminishing returns? The returns are extremely high! One of the US's main competitive advantages (especially now) remains our extremely high returns to education (that doesn't just mean the abstract qualify of education, but the ability of translating educational returns into productivity, which we are far better at than pretty much every other country of any size). Our tech advantage? Because of how well our universities educate and incubate innovation. Our manufacturing advantage? Same basic thing. You get the idea. An educational system that performed even a bit less well than ours does could easily take a few percentage points off our growth, since so much of that growth is dependent on the US being a country pushing the boundaries of innovation and productivity, which are highly educationally linked.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not touching whether or not it was justified, I'm confining my remarks to how that statement gives a unique glimpse into the author's POV.
it brings up the question of the core elements of that POV, and whether its vitriol or its description of what makes something the 'radical Left' or 'a media puppet of the Left' (see, his comments on NPR) holds any water, or if it's just the framing based on his approximation of himself as a moderate, allowing himself to define moderacy, etc.
The short copy is 'no' but right now there's a side discussion about education in america so
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
InTrade has liked Romney's debate performances, and disliked Perry's. Before the 9/8 debate, Perry was leading Romney 38-32; after the debate, Romney led Perry 39-35. Before last night's debate, Romney was leading 36-32. After last night's debate he was leading 42-29.
Now it certainly could be that InTrade is suffering from some sort of selection bias causing it to overreact to minor events, but I think it's likely that the debates have really hurt Perry, particularly the unflattering news stories that have followed each debate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago. edit: Though I think this is largely of function of people just getting to know who Perry actually is.
Santorum is actually pretty hungry for blood right now, and there's definitely a chance that while he won't get the nomination, his name is getting out there, and down the road that could pay off.
There's still so much time for any candidate to screw the pooch, but if things hold, I expect Romney to comfortably snag the nomination.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Traditional polls have caught the trend as well although it's unclear whether the fall in polls is commensurate with the increase in InTrade price.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago.
Fed Up! came out in Nov. 2010 (which is less than "years ago").
In fact, during the book's roll out he used the "candid" opinions expressed as evidence that he wasn't running for the nomination in 2012 (the idea being no one could say the things he ways saying and be a serious Presidential contender).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I must be confusing his time endorsing folks like Al Gore, with his book.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago. edit: Though I think this is largely of function of people just getting to know who Perry actually is.
That's pretty much the long and short of it. Perry's pretty ghastly when you get right down to his career history and his outright indulgence in self-serving graft.
I've pretty much already detailed what's going to happen to perry, and why, and through what machinations of the GOP and republican primaries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We all knew that was going to happen. The media and the public like the new shiny things that come out, but as soon as we really have a chance to play with them and realize they aren't all that, we put them down and go find something else. Sometimes we return to our favorite toys of the past.
Perry's shine is starting to wear off, and he'll come back down to earth now.
Fun news? Huntsman is third behind Romney and Paul in New Hampshire. Parlaying that into anything more will still be tricky, but it really shows that when people get to know him one on one, his strategy is on to something.
As far as the debate goes, the best part must have been the crowd booing the gay soldier who asked if they'd bring back DADT. Santorum, the field's poster child for DADT, called it social engineering and that gays not received special privileges. Ignoring for a moment that gay servicemembers still don't get marriage benefits for their legal spouses, I fail to see how it's a special privilege to be gay in the military. Also, he should REALLY be careful with the phrase "social engineering" in relation to the military. When you start cribbing 40s racists to make your point, you're started down a troubling path. His answer also sort of made no sense. He said two things: 1. That recently outed soldiers wouldn't be kicked out, and 2. They should just keep it to themselves! Well, that'll be interesting to institute. So he'll let current gays serve, but we'll go back to kicking out the new gays? How does that fix anything for him? And what, like before DADT was repealed, they were shouting from the roof tops? The whole problem with DADT is that thousands of service men and women were expelled from the military despite never having uttered a peep about it.
[ September 23, 2011, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The booing of the gay serviceman was interesting to me, too. Not because it was surprising or anything, but because of the way it hinted at something of the social conservative true attitude towards the military: it's so well liked because it often reflects them (social conservatives)-the respect for service and sacrifice makes fine rhetoric, but it's far from the entire story either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not entirely sure I'd characterize it that way. I think most of them are pretty genuine in their veneration of the military (to the point of excess, if you ask me), but being gay is a nullifying factor, as in, "Oh, you're gay? Well, you're not a REAL soldier, so I can hate you now." It's a pretty necessary psychological tool to redefine something you revere as the "other" so you won't suffer from cognitive dissonance when prosecuting your hatred of the thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:His answer also sort of made no sense.
No kidding.
For reference, here's the question and the answer:
quote:My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?"
(BOOING)
Santorum: "Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing 'don't ask/don't tell' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
"We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform."
(APPLAUSE)
"And I believe this undermines that ability."
(APPLAUSE)
Moderator Megyn Kelly: "So what — what — what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's — now he's out. He's — you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?"
Santorum: "I think it's — it's — it's — look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with — with our military right now. And that's tragic.
"I would — I would just say that, going forward, we would — we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.
"That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in — in — I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in — in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is — it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it — keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual."
Re: the bolded part - this is how you hem and haw at an issue when you know that speaking your mind about what you actually think would make you completely unelectable.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
To pick a couple of nits: "the crowd" didn't boo, two or three people did (just as, in the last debate, "the crowd" didn't yell "let him die" during the insurance question).
Also, Santorum never talked about "social engineering" in his response (which was incoherent, rambling, and demonstrated a shocking lack of preparedness on a question he should have been ready for). He talked about "injecting social policy" and "social experimentation" both of which I guess you could argue are equivalent to "social engineering," but I would say they're subtly different.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... When you start cribbing 40s racists to make your point, you're started down a troubling path. ... So he'll let current gays serve, but we'll go back to kicking out the new gays?
Maybe he'll go back to the old way (for blacks or Asians) and have segregated regiments for gays.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not entirely sure I'd characterize it that way. I think most of them are pretty genuine in their veneration of the military (to the point of excess, if you ask me), but being gay is a nullifying factor, as in, "Oh, you're gay? Well, you're not a REAL soldier, so I can hate you now." It's a pretty necessary psychological tool to redefine something you revere as the "other" so you won't suffer from cognitive dissonance when prosecuting your hatred of the thing.
You should have seen the FR response, it's pretty much exactly what you're talking about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pardon my ignorance, what does FR stand for? The French response?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Free Republic, I think
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: To pick a couple of nits: "the crowd" didn't boo, two or three people did (just as, in the last debate, "the crowd" didn't yell "let him die" during the insurance question).
This is an important point. In the first debate though, the room did applaud Perry executing more people than any other governor.
But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the governor is head of the executive branch and the executive branch includes the prison system as well as attorney general's office so he can be said to be responsible to some degree for the effectiveness of those organizations in achieving death penalty verdicts and carrying out executions.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One governor decided he didn't believe in the death penalty and so the death penalty went away in that state. I don't remember which one though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But even that is a bit loaded, the governor does not execute people, they choose not to pardon people.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the governor is head of the executive branch and the executive branch includes the prison system as well as attorney general's office so he can be said to be responsible to some degree for the effectiveness of those organizations in achieving death penalty verdicts and carrying out executions.
The judiciary though would be in charge of actually handing out death sentences. The Executive branch could control how much the state prosecution seeks the death penalty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Free Republic, I think
Correct.
Free Republic: Not As Far From The Conservative Mainstream As You Would Hope™ weighs in on DADT.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, at least they are no longer pretending to be deferring to the wisdom of the military's leaders or "waiting for the data." Now they've at least embraced that they are against the 1st amendment in principle, and are seeking to impose their moral authority through legislation. I mean... admitting you are a fascist pig is the hardest part.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nothing new will be admitted. Take a look at this statement, por exemple:
quote:Sorry, even though I’ve served with some great folks who were gay, I know the liberal system. The pressures of PC will rise to overcome logic and procedure. And, it will cast doubt on those gays who have been promoted due to ability only.
It's perfect, it's a solid encapsulation of all the mechanisms at play!
1. Don't Get Me Wrong: make sure to point out that you work with/are 'tolerant' of/have friends who are of the group you wish to oppress. You need to make sure that nobody thinks you're intolerant/homophobic just because you want to keep gays silenced and delegitimized!
2. It's A Plot: Nothing can just be about fixing a broken system, it's all about advancing a corrupt agenda!
3. Mewling about Political Correctness: the no. 1 thing to do when many people on an internet board think and vocally state you are wrong is to say you are being 'dogpiled.' The no. 1 thing to do when most people in the country have turned against the discriminations that you are afraid to see repealed is to hem about PC culture and being 'forced to act and think a certain way'
4. This Is For Their Own Good: Those discriminations were obviously in place to help the homos. It is the height of foolishness for them to act out against these protections! (iirc this defense of DADT was also used here not too long ago)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:
Santorum: Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.
Is former Senator Santorum under the impression that our active military is celibate? Because I have some stories I could tell him.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, Mitch Daniels was talked about a lot as a favorite among the GOP for a variety of reasons for a run. A lot of candidates waited specifically to see what he was going to do before they threw their hat in the ring. His credentials as a fiscal conservative are highly regarded.
It was an interesting interview, and I think Jon was a little thrown off by the fact that Daniels wasn't defending most of the standard GOP talking points. I have to wonder what this race would look like if Daniels was in it. It just doesn't seem like he'd fit in with the current crowd. I think he'd hew closer to Huntsman. But with how far to the right this race is pushing candidates, I think he'd probably get squeezed out.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Daniels recently went pretty far in defending Perry's Social Security comments. While he's more moderate socially than, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Perry, he's quite Paul Ryan-esque fiscally. Chris Christie is like that, too; socially agnostic, focused on fiscal issues. All three generated a lot of interest among elite Republicans, but all three chose not to run. Meanwhile, movement Republicans like Bachmann and Santorum ended up in the race, leading to the primaries (thus far) being more focused on social issues than they otherwise would have been. I think this has generally been to the detriment of the party's chances in the Presidential election. The big issues in 2012 aren't social issues, so holding primaries that largely focus on them seems suboptimal.
That's not to say fiscal issues haven't played a role in the primaries so far, or that they won't in the coming nine months, just that I think social considerations have thus far played an out-sized role in the GOP's weighing of various candidates.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Assuming it meant anything at all (see my earlier comment on the coherence of Santorum's overall response), I would guess the "special privilege" he was referring to was sort of a pre-emptive concern about reverse discrimination. "We don't have a 'straight service members rule' so why do we need a 'gay service members rule'?!" Something like that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: "We don't have a 'straight service members rule' so why do we need a 'gay service members rule'?!" Something like that.
which ironically argues in favor of the abolishment of dadt, so
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What 'special privilege' is he talking about, anyway?
I can't even guess at what the special privilege is. I'm trying to wrap my brain around some weird sort of Conservative logic, and I can't come up with it.
Is the privilege supposed to be that we're making a special exception for evil and immoral behavior and condoning a sinful lifestyle? That's all I can come up with.
Assuming it meant anything at all (see my earlier comment on the coherence of Santorum's overall response), I would guess the "special privilege" he was referring to was sort of a pre-emptive concern about reverse discrimination. "We don't have a 'straight service members rule' so why do we need a 'gay service members rule'?!" Something like that.
I don't think it makes any more sense to them than it does to you. But I think it has some shades of the idea that gays are inherently unqualified for military services for reasons of being "faggy" or possibly "girly," and so they will automatically be poor soldiers because of gay stereotypes about limp-wristed fashion photographers and stylists.
(ETA: because homophobia and anti-gay stereotypes, especially in the military, seem to have more to do with lack of masculinity than anything else).
Which is actually somewhat the lookout of the gay community itself, which sometimes perpetuates effeminate gay stereotypes as a way of self-distinguishing and aggressively asserting their sexuality. Blame mostly movies and reality tv- and in fact, a lot of straight producers and writers as well, who think that gays are only one kind of person.
[ September 24, 2011, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But women serve in the military as well, and have served long enough to be more or less off-limits when it comes to disparaging groups for serving. Do effeminate men occupy some sort of nether region between the two genders that makes them accessible for scorn?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My contention would be that, yes, effeminate men occupy that nether region, and have for thousands of years. I think that's a rather simple equation: Men know how to relate to men, and how to relate to women, but an effeminate man may not be relatable in the same ways as either a woman or another (more masculine) man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just lost two responses in a row. In a very weird way. Pssssssst: I think the site's being maliciously probed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Crossposted this from the execution thread. This is an interesting case in Perry's gubernatorial history. I think it paints him in a pretty bad light as someone who makes poor decisions for political purposes when presented with overwhelming evidence. This might not get much play in the primary, though Brian Williams sort of tangentially raised the issue in a debate, but you have to expect Obama or some liberal 501 will hit him with it. And it's a fair charge. It's about decision making and fact-gathering. It also reminds me all too much of Bush and the Iraq war invasion situation.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Rick Perry has been pretty disdainful of science and evidence in many issues. The fact that he behaves that way when lives hinge upon it is informative but not surprising. Also, there is the whole squashing of the group that was investigating what went wrong in this case.
I am always amazed that republicans believe the government screws everything up and should be minimal but has no problem giving the government power to execute people. If the government is so bad, surely executions should be one of the first things eliminated from its list of powers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Clearly you hate America.
Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia where they...oh wait, that's pretty much just Texas with funny hats isn't it? Oh wait! They have that too! Damn!
There has to be a longer joke in there. Name a place that's really hot, it never rains, is run by religious fundamentalists, where they unfairly execute large numbers of people and there's a ton of oil in the ground. If you answered Saudi Arabia, you're wrong! We were looking for Texas.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am always amazed that republicans believe the government screws everything up and should be minimal but has no problem giving the government power to execute people. If the government is so bad, surely executions should be one of the first things eliminated from its list of powers.
I don't see the death penalty as exhibiting this tension so much - in most cases isn't it a jury of one's peers that affirms the sentence? Conservative support for rendition, water-boarding etc. seems more contradictory, especially given that innocent people have been subjected to these.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Brown people
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Brown people
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I'm sure nativism plays a role, but I think the bigger issue is that priority #1 is low taxes and a bigger government requires more revenue, hence big government is demonized.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think the general consensus is that Texas has for sure executed an innocent man (Lyrhawn's link). Also, hundreds of death row inmates have been freed by Project Innocence. With their crap record, I would think this would be one more example of the government being a failure with horrible consequences and yet the anti-government party seems to be hugely in favor of death penalty. Also, there was a study that showed if you are pro-life you are more likely to be pro-death penalty than if you are pro-choice.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, they just gave women the right to vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In 2015
And they probably have to be escorted there by men due to the guardianship rules.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And they only vote like once every 100 years in those municipal elections, which are themselves a very recent trend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And they still get publicly flogged for driving. Or being out without male chaperoning. And are frequently sold off as children into marriages.
But hooray they can vote in municipal elections now. If their male family members permit it, cause they ain't allowed out on their own. Yippee.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I tend to think the reason there is the disconnect you describe, scholarette, is that the conservatives we hear on this issue are more likely to be social conservatives than anything. And it's a rare social conservative, in my experience, that actually believes in 'limited government' overall-but rather 'limited to things we want' government.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Daniels recently went pretty far in defending Perry's Social Security comments. While he's more moderate socially than, say, Bachmann or Santorum or Perry, he's quite Paul Ryan-esque fiscally. Chris Christie is like that, too; socially agnostic, focused on fiscal issues. All three generated a lot of interest among elite Republicans, but all three chose not to run. Meanwhile, movement Republicans like Bachmann and Santorum ended up in the race, leading to the primaries (thus far) being more focused on social issues than they otherwise would have been. I think this has generally been to the detriment of the party's chances in the Presidential election. The big issues in 2012 aren't social issues, so holding primaries that largely focus on them seems suboptimal.
That's not to say fiscal issues haven't played a role in the primaries so far, or that they won't in the coming nine months, just that I think social considerations have thus far played an out-sized role in the GOP's weighing of various candidates.
Well said! I think this is a fantastic assessment of the current situation.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I tend to think the reason there is the disconnect you describe, scholarette, is that the conservatives we hear on this issue are more likely to be social conservatives than anything. And it's a rare social conservative, in my experience, that actually believes in 'limited government' overall-but rather 'limited to things we want' government.
This too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And they still get publicly flogged for driving. Or being out without male chaperoning. And are frequently sold off as children into marriages.
But hooray they can vote in municipal elections now. If their male family members permit it, cause they ain't allowed out on their own. Yippee.
A friend of mine was a consular officer in Saudi for a few years. She had some pretty frankly hilarious (in a black humor sort of way) stories about the decency laws there. She had diplomatic immunity of course, so the local decency gestapo couldn't arrest her, but they were apparently quite willing to approach western women and hit them about the legs and buttocks with long sticks, to show their outrage at the women being out alone, with their hair uncovered, or for speaking to a cashier. There have apparently been a few encounters between these cops and American military women (particularly air force pilots and support crews) that ended with the Americans in question being quietly reassigned to other bases after breaking sticks, and publicly reproaching the police for mistreatment.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The debates have been terrible for Perry, especially his statement that he would not step back from anything in his book from years ago. edit: Though I think this is largely of function of people just getting to know who Perry actually is.
That's pretty much the long and short of it. Perry's pretty ghastly when you get right down to his career history and his outright indulgence in self-serving graft.
I've pretty much already detailed what's going to happen to perry, and why, and through what machinations of the GOP and republican primaries.
lol... self-serving graft just about sums it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I read, I think in the Economist, that this is an interesting entry point into the discussion about sex ed and the differences between the two sides. Social conservatives teach abstinence not to reduce pregnancies but to reduce teen sex because it's evil and immoral. Reduced pregnancy rates are just a bonus. The people on the other side want to give as much information as possible to reduce teen pregnancy rates, and they'd also like to teach teens, to a degree, about self-confidence and healthy body image so they make better choices, but they're willing to admit that teens will have sex (but without exhorting them to do it). The discussion simply isn't being had on the same playing field.
I'd never heard it framed that way before, so I thought it was interesting. Normally the discussion is over the effectiveness of the varying education types, but Perry swept that issue off the table entirely and simply said that the returns they're getting for the money justify it. That won't play well at all if someone actually engages him on it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Questioner's contention: Abstinence-only sex education is demonstrably ineffective. We have a higher teen pregnancy rate than 47 other states.
Perry's Answer: Abstinence works.
I don't even think he's clued in to the nature of the problem here. Does abstinence work as a form of birth control? Yes. In the way that not drinking guarantees no chance of a DUI. Does refusing to teach your youth about birth control techniques other than abstinence from sex have an effect on the teen pregnancy rate, namely that the rate is higher than in places where birth control is an educational subject? Apparently, yes, it does.
What did you expect? He's the governor of Texas. Sorry Texans, you've got a track record that doesn't impress me in the least- and I'm from a state that has elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, *AND* the Governator.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I didn't find anything in the Economist's archives that conforms to what you describe. I did find a link to this WaPo write-up of this study which found in a randomized trial that, over a two year period, middle-school students given abstinence-only sex education were about 30% less likely to become sexually active than their peers who received comprehensive sex ed. I did a quick and dirty search and didn't immediately find studies either replicating or refuting the results.
But, yeah, Perry's response was can't-look-away bad. His instinct to challenge the interviewers' assumption that abstinence-only education had been proven ineffective was right (the logic of "Texas has the 47th worst teen pregnancy rate" and "Texas has abstinence-focused sex ed" ergo "abstinence-focused sex ed is ineffective" has several flaws), but his execution stank to high heaven.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:did find a link to this WaPo write-up of this study which found in a randomized trial that, over a two year period, middle-school students given abstinence-only sex education were about 30% less likely to become sexually active than their peers who received comprehensive sex ed.
Which begs the question, what should be the goal of sex education? Is the goal to discourage kids from becoming sexually active or is it to protect kids from pregnancy, stds and abuse? If its some combination of the above, which is highest priority?
And you have to answer that question before you can start asking whether or not a particular type of sex education is working.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sure. I just thought it was an interesting counterpoint to the prevailing assumption, made both by the interviewer in the clip, as well as several other proponents of comprehensive sex ed. And particularly interesting given I went to the Economist archives to find a story with a distinctly different perspective. Although, facilely, I would say not becoming sexually active is a pretty good way to avoid STDs and pregnancy. I think abuse, as an issue, ought to be taught separately from sex ed.
More to your point, the study reports that, among those who did become sexually active, condom use was not observably affected by the type of sex ed employed. Additionally, a statistically significant decrease in the number of sexual partners was reported in the comprehensive sex ed groups over a control, but not over the abstinence-only sex ed group.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I didn't find anything in the Economist's archives that conforms to what you describe. I did find a link to this WaPo write-up of this study which found in a randomized trial that, over a two year period, middle-school students given abstinence-only sex education were about 30% less likely to become sexually active than their peers who received comprehensive sex ed. I did a quick and dirty search and didn't immediately find studies either replicating or refuting the results.
But, yeah, Perry's response was can't-look-away bad. His instinct to challenge the interviewers' assumption that abstinence-only education had been proven ineffective was right (the logic of "Texas has the 47th worst teen pregnancy rate" and "Texas has abstinence-focused sex ed" ergo "abstinence-focused sex ed is ineffective" has several flaws), but his execution stank to high heaven.
You're right, it wasn't on The Economist, but I was LINKED to it by the economist. Here's the Economist article with the link. And here is the article it links to.
That entire interview is available in pieces on YouTube, and there are some interesting bits in it. He repeatedly looks absolutely lost when confronted directly by evidence that contradicts his statements, and when all else fails, he basically just balls up and says "I'm right." On the other hand, he had a couple of pretty good answers in there too. It was a grab bag.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I didn't find anything in the Economist's archives that conforms to what you describe. I did find a link to this WaPo write-up of this study which found in a randomized trial that, over a two year period, middle-school students given abstinence-only sex education were about 30% less likely to become sexually active than their peers who received comprehensive sex ed. I did a quick and dirty search and didn't immediately find studies either replicating or refuting the results.
But, yeah, Perry's response was can't-look-away bad. His instinct to challenge the interviewers' assumption that abstinence-only education had been proven ineffective was right (the logic of "Texas has the 47th worst teen pregnancy rate" and "Texas has abstinence-focused sex ed" ergo "abstinence-focused sex ed is ineffective" has several flaws), but his execution stank to high heaven.
Well here's my question in relation to this study, how does this compare with rates of sexual activity as a whole? The kids in this study were like 12 and 13 years old. Are 50% of 13 year olds really having sex? I mean geez, I knew things were different than when I was in high school (all of ten years ago), but that's mind boggling.
That seems awfully high for that age group. And you have to ask if the same results can be repeated when you get into the even higher risk groups in their mid to late teens who are even more likely to be sexually active.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You're right, it wasn't on The Economist, but I was LINKED to it by the economist. Here's the Economist article with the link. And here is the article it links to.
I was surprised, given your description of the article, that it was sourced to The Economist. I am not at all surprised that such an article would be sourced to The American Prospect. Not commenting on the merits of the article, just the apparent ideological bent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One potential pitfall of this study is that they are looking at "self reported" sexual activity so we can't tell whether abstinence only education actually discourages kids from becoming sexually active or only encourages them to report that they are not. (I was going to say "encourages them to lie" but decided that lying could go both ways. That is, some kids say they are sexually active when they are not while others will say they are not, when in fact they are).
I think that's one of the reasons that its important to look at verifiable statistics like teen pregnancies and stds in addition to sexual activity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Welp! With Christie out. I think it's virtually unavoidable that we will see a Romney / Obama contest in 2012.
edit: Of course this is politics, and crazy things can still happen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Where has lisa been, who does she support aside from Ron Paul.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Lisa was banned from Hatrack, a few months ago.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No way? How did I miss that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Welp! With Christie out. I think it's virtually unavoidable that we will see a Romney / Obama contest in 2012.
edit: Of course this is politics, and crazy things can still happen.
Wow, with the picture WaPo decided to run, I immediately read "Now is not my time," in the voice of Chris Farley's "Matt Foley" motivational speaker character.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No way? How did I miss that?
Probably because I didn't ban her publicly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, that's entirely your prerogative. Perhaps you ought to have shared it just so that people would know, but I'm sure you had your good reasons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Explains the uptick in her posting on Ornery. I didn't even notice the relative silence. Weird.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
She will be missed, as much as I got pissed off by her I wanted her approval.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I am sure this has been mentioned by now, but the Republican primary field is depressingly weak.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, there were sometimes lengthy periods, I seem to remember, where she didn't post. But some may have been less-than-voluntary.
Personally I can imagine reasons for it to have been announced, and not. Seems a bit of a push.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I am sure this has been mentioned by now, but the Republican primary field is depressingly weak.
Not as a whole. Romney could get elected if he tried. Huntsman could get elected if he was the candidate. Most of the halfway decent candidates like Mitch daniels were scared away by the stampede to court the far right and the tea party. Romney is still a solid candidate for the nomination, especially with how terrible Perry has been. If Romney gets the nom, I think he probably wins.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If Romney gets the nom, I think he probably wins.
*nods head*
Baring a catastrophe, or a sudden surge in the economy, I think this election will be Romney's to lose. Which is interesting because when Romney announced his candidacy, and it was a sort of "Who cares?" development, I really felt he had a poor chance of winning either the nomination much less the presidency.
Romney has played it safe, and luckily for him, no credible opponent has arisen and stuck around.
The economy is such a powerful indicator of whether a president will win reelection, and this economy basically spells end-game for the Obama administration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Historically he appeared to be the sure thing. The GOP field tends to reward people who put their time in and wait.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Right but there was a very real risk that the Republican party itself was tearing at the seams, and would implode, thus ensuring Obama gets a free second term.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One potential pitfall of this study is that they are looking at "self reported" sexual activity so we can't tell whether abstinence only education actually discourages kids from becoming sexually active or only encourages them to report that they are not. (I was going to say "encourages them to lie" but decided that lying could go both ways. That is, some kids say they are sexually active when they are not while others will say they are not, when in fact they are).
I think that's one of the reasons that its important to look at verifiable statistics like teen pregnancies and stds in addition to sexual activity.
I saw a study that looked at If I asked did this person have sex, then described various acts (anal, oral, vaginal, etc), would you say yes. There is a large amount of variance in what people say yes to. Woman are more likely to answer yes to anal, no to oral than men for example.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Surely the questioners actually define sex before asking the subjects to respond? That seems like an awfully big variable to let them define for you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not believe it likely for Obama to lose, in fact I believe it to be his election to lose. Consensus seems to be that incumbency is a huge benefit to your reelection chances. As ones ability to campaign is huge, Truman brought himself back from sure defeat while Carter ran a weak campaign and lost. And while Obama the president has been dissapointing Obama the Campaigner is a force to be reckoned with.
Especially since he will be free to hammer on the Republicans for their terrible record.
Then there's estimations that Obama will likely have a 1 billion$ war chest of contributions in which to outspend the Republicans 2 to 1; then there's the electorial math which heavily favours him, I can't dig them up right now but he doesn't need very many states to insure a victory.
Then there's the chance that Romney will select a Tea Partier to be his running mate, recreating the "Palin Effect".
It will be interesting to see if Romney can get by without choosing a tea partyer as a running mate (or Sarah Palin in specific). Though maybe he can get by with choosing someone from the movement who has actually been in office over the last three years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He'll have to. The real Romney, most people agree, is pretty moderate, and he HAS to be moderate to steal independents from Obama. He'll have to pull a McCain and pull an anchor conservative, and I think there will be a lot of push to either snag Cain or Bachmann...though I wouldn't count out an out of left field snag of Daniels or Christie or even Jeb Bush, something along those lines. Actually, Marc Rubio's name is already being bandied about. Not a great deal of experience, but Romney has a lot of that, and Rubio's conservative bonafides are solid.
I highly doubt it will be Palin, simply because she is undisciplined and a terrible campaigner. I actually think Bachmann will get the boot for that too..though less so. Bachmann, for all her serious, serious flaws, is still a TP darling, and she's evolved into an impressive attack dog. She's actually toned down the crazy a lot from a few years ago. If there's pressure to present some sort of diverse ticket, it'll almost have to be her or Cain, though frankly I think Cain is better as a candidate. Though, honestly, I wonder how many conservative voters would be turned off by voting for the Mormon/Black Guy ticket. Or the Mormon/Crazy Woman ticket. Rubio looks better every day.
Better question: Will Biden get the boot? I doubt it, but if Obama was smart, he'd seriously consider it for a lot of reasons.
1. Biden isn't going to run for president again. He's simply too old, and there are too many young guns in the party. A lot of those young guns have shot themselves in the foot in recent years, so he can't go for Edwards, or Spitzer. But if he wants to establish a new frontrunner for 2016, this is the only chance he gets, otherwise it's a wide open field and a lot of mess. And we know how that goes.
2. Biden is a gaffe machine. As Leo said on the West Wing, "He can't shove a forkful of waffle into his mouth without coughing up the ball." He needs someone who is a stronger presence, a stronger campaigner, and has a lot more disciplined energy.
3. You don't need him anymore. He needed Biden because people didn't think he had enough experience. Frankly, I think they were more right than wrong, but regarding POLITICS, not the day to day stuff that Biden was so good at. Biden is a foreign policy specialist, and Obama is nailing foreign policy for the most part. Attempts to attack him based on national security will fall flat, and for the most part, Romney or whoever isn't even going to go there. They'll stick to domestics.
There's a small crop of younger Democrats out there, but I bet most of them won't get the nod. Obama should go after a middle aged governor. Frankly a lot of people would like to see him snag Hillary. She's a powerhouse campaigner, a lock for the 2016 nomination if she wants it (despite her age). She has stellar credentials now, her favorability ratings are probably the highest they have every been, and lots of Democrats wish she was president and not him. Plus, Democrats and left-leaning independents don't have a problem with a ticket that lacks a white guy. I don't know if she'd actually go for it, she seems to be implying that after this term, she's out of the administration entirely, but I wonder. She's ambitious, but is she really over it?
It's all speculation, I really don't think Obama will drop Biden. But if he was smart, he would really, really think about it. Other VP candidates bring a LOT more to the table than he does.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, interesting. If Obama loses, he may be the first wartime president to not be re-elected (of the ones that have sought re-election). http://ask.yahoo.com/20040130.html Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lyr, you think the chances of Hilary on the bottom of Obama's ticket are pretty low? If so, why is that no longer a consideration?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the chances are low because I don't think Obama will even drop Biden, so the odds of him even having to pick a new running mate are really low. Historically it isn't done very often, even less so in modern politics. Bush didn't drop Cheney to prop up a frontrunner, though, you could argue that since Cheney was running the White House anyway, it was Cheney who chose to keep Bush around.
Dropping Biden, I think, would take a level of political acumen and guts that I really question in Obama.
And if he DOES drop Biden, Clinton has already stated she won't run again, and plans to leave government service after her term as SecState. Now, perhaps that's just her being coy, like all potential candidates are. No one ever wants to give a straight answer, but usually they leave the door open in a more meaningful way. Even if we assume that she does want the job, would Obama give it to someone that ambitious and that charged, who might actually outshine him a bit? Possibly. Again, that would take a high level of political acumen and guts. I think he's safer with a nice middle of the road liberal Democratic governor somewhere, and safety is what he'd look for.
Don't get me wrong, I'd actually be pleased as punch if he actually did it and she accepted. I think it's something he couldn't announce until after the GOP field is whittled down to one, because he doesn't want to rock the boat at all, not when they still might serve up a weaker candidate to them. But he'd charge the ticket and give the campaign some major oomph going into the heart of campaign season next year.
I'd also like to see her plan a major role as an envoy to Congress, since Obama has taken such a damaging hands OFF approach to legislating, by and large, and Clintons are legislative pitbulls.
Again, they could just as easily change their minds tomorrow and say that Biden doesn't want to serve again, that he's stepping down for the good of the party and the administration, but I don't think he will. Biden ran for president more than once, he likes being up there, and I don't think he WANTS to leave, nor do I think Obama gives him the boot. Read the editorial linked to on the CNN article I just posted. That's exactly why Biden needs to go. But I just don't see Obama doing it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe it's my political naivete, but I don't think it really matters who is VP. Do they even do anything besides wait for the president to kick?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
They break ties in the Senate and in todays political climate have a fair degree of influence, only need to look at Cheney. Also election wise they help shore up the ticket and can handle campaigning.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The VP has almost no official power (although, as we saw with Dick Cheney, they can be granted a large amount of official Presidential power if the President says so) and many are picked based more on electoral calculations than their ability, but there is also a tradition of using them as Congress wranglers, especially when the VP is politically savvy.
President Obama's first term has been marked by a weak and disorganized Democratic Congress and a hostile, obstructive Republican. The Democratic leadership, especially, has proven extremely inept. Because of this power vacuum, President Obama, especially if he wins a second term, could be the de facto leader of the Democratic legislature and could use someone like Hillary Clinton to drive through his legislative agenda.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Democratic leadership, especially, has proven extremely inept.
What are you thinking of here?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is time to abolish the senate and rule by fear, fear of this battlestation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Consensus over at SA is that we need to reimplement the New Deal policies as the country going down the shitter can be directly traced to Reagan ending them.
Whats a good catchy buzz phrase like "Yes We Can" that could mean New Deal? On dude suggested "Renewed Deal".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That seems like a serious oversimplification of what happened. Carter's stimulus policies didn't jolt the economy, and the economy certainly improved under Reagan's administration, at least it exited the recession. Whether or not Reagan is responsible for that change, I can't say right now, but the country certainly wasn't in decline starting at that time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But BlackBlade, you're going against the consensus at SA!! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As a member of SA, I dispute that any such consensus exists. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I, for one, welcome our new Lowtaxian overlords. Until they get the crap kicked out of them by Uwe Boll, anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Democratic leadership, especially, has proven extremely inept.
What are you thinking of here?
I think he's thinking of pretty much every move they've made in the last year. They simply do not know how to negotiate, and they don't know how to form and present a cohesive message. They don't really appear to stand for any specific thing at any given time. GOP has totally controlled the message and the terms.
If Obama chose to give her the "authority" to do so, Clinton could whip them into shape.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have no idea why you think Hilary could control the democrats better than Obama. Bill had pretty very similar difficulties with congress when he was President. During his first two years, when he had a democratic congress he couldn't get anything done. Then when the republicans swept the mid-term elections he shifted to the right and despite that the republicans forced a couple of government shutdowns over the budget deficit.
What did Hilary accomplish while she was in the Senate?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Near as I can tell, Obama hasn't even tried. He's by and large left Congress to handle things on their own, on BOTH sides, unless absolutely forced to take part.
At least she has relationships with people in the Senate, where Obama only was for a couple years and was never really a major factor. She was also far more involved in dealing with Democratic Senate leadership during her time there. They still didn't do a lot of what she wanted in terms of getting a more cohesive message together, but she was a voice for liberal cohesion that the Dems were missing, perhaps short of Ted Kennedy, but he'd slowed down too much in his last years there.
Frankly, I think she's just tougher than Obama.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think he's thinking of pretty much every move they've made in the last year. They simply do not know how to negotiate, and they don't know how to form and present a cohesive message. They don't really appear to stand for any specific thing at any given time. GOP has totally controlled the message and the terms.
If Obama chose to give her the "authority" to do so, Clinton could whip them into shape.
How should they have negotiated? What could they have done to make negotiations go differently?
As for messaging- there is a democratic president; do you want them articulating a distinct message? Substantively, what do you imagine would change with better messaging? Or are you concerned about electoral prospects in '12?
As for Clinton, I don't see what she changes. Suppose she had been VP the entire time. How do you think things would be different?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Lyrhawn, I think you overvalue the importance of a cohesive message when there is no possibility of enacting the implications of that message. You would force people like Joe Manchin to take positions that are politically unpopular with their constituency with no upside. I gather that one of Harry Reid's strengths is that he doesn't push his caucus into going on the record with such positions unless it actually matters.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm dubious that any man or woman could get this Congress mobilized. I think only some sort of disaster of incredible magnitude (war, famine, epidemic) occuring could all the grime in the gears get fished out.
In other news, Sarah Palin announced she isn't running. So, Romney / Obama squaring off in 2012.
[ October 05, 2011, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
I would be very interested in hearing what other outcomes you think were possible with different negotiating tactics. Boehner did not have the votes to cave. Do you not think that Bachman et al. were sincere in their willingness to see a default due to not raising the debt ceiling? Do you think that there was some way to persuade enough of the House Reps to raise taxes?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I'm dubious that any man or woman could get this Congress mobilized. I think only some sort of disaster of incredible magnitude (war, famine, epidemic) occuring could all the grime in the gears get fished out.
Even in the aftermath of such a disaster, congress would drift back to what it is now, and probably quicker than we'd like to think. The GOP has shown how to break the two-party system and reap short-to-medium term political benefit from it. The pressure will always exist for them (or whatever fiscally conservative party follows) to do it again.
I'm not really sure how to fix it short of a constitutional amendment of fairly epic proportions. Unfortunately, I would only have the slightest idea of what would go in it, nor would I trust any of the current leadership to decide it.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In a two party system this means voting democrat.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In a two party system this means voting democrat.
You can still vote republican if you primary out your representatives to someone who would be willing to work in good faith. You know. In theory.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Or vote for the dude you will won't win the election, also works. Split the vote! c'mon!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
I would be very interested in hearing what other outcomes you think were possible with different negotiating tactics. Boehner did not have the votes to cave. Do you not think that Bachman et al. were sincere in their willingness to see a default due to not raising the debt ceiling? Do you think that there was some way to persuade enough of the House Reps to raise taxes?
The Tea Party caucus is a minority WITHIN the GOP. Both Boehner and McConnell repeated several times over that there would not be a default. Now the GOP knows that they just have to stall to the last minute every time because the Dems will simply cave every time.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
I don't believe that when someone holds a person hostage that you try and call their bluff. "Oh yeah? You're really gonna hurt them? Prove it."
Particularly when the GOP can play the card, "It's not our fault! We offered a fair compromise that if we're going to extend benefits for the unemployed, we need to ensure that the job creators have the capacity to hire those folks. Raising taxes right now would have just made the problem worse. We were willing to compromise and this president wasn't."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the current situation in congress is kind of unique in there being a majority of one party in the House and a majority of the other in the Senate (do I have that right?) Honestly, how old were most of you during the Clinton admin? GHW Bush? Heck, I probably watched more news during the Reagan administration than I do now. These are not GOP dirty tricks. It's just folks being folks. Well, white male fraternity bro folks being folks.
While I seriously doubt Obama would replace Biden, I do think Clinton could make a difference (suspending reality to the degree I could imagine that as a good thing). I mean, I don't even understand how a football coach can make a difference to how a game is won or lost, but some people just have a quality of leadership. I don't think Hilary is a great or even a fine example, but I am certain she has more of it than Biden. Biden is a weasel, and not just because he's a democrat; Orrin Hatch is also a weasel. Though for all of what some of you wish for in a GOP lawmaker, he's your guy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
I don't believe that when someone holds a person hostage that you try and call their bluff. "Oh yeah? You're really gonna hurt them? Prove it."
Particularly when the GOP can play the card, "It's not our fault! We offered a fair compromise that if we're going to extend benefits for the unemployed, we need to ensure that the job creators have the capacity to hire those folks. Raising taxes right now would have just made the problem worse. We were willing to compromise and this president wasn't."
The GOP took the country hostage, and then Boehner said "Yeah, but I have no intention of pulling the trigger." Maybe Bachmann wanted to pull the trigger, but Bachmann is part of a small minority of a big party. Boehner would have had more than enough votes from moderate and liberal Republicans and the left. Frankly, he might have enjoyed the chance to marginalize the Tea Party, since they're single-handedly making him look powerless and ineffective. He couldn't even get his own damned FEMA bill passed a couple weeks ago. He would have caved, he SAID he would have caved.
And he can sling that line all he wants. Polls how that more than 2/3ds of Americans agree that taxes for the wealthy should go up. It's a message that only works for a minority of the country, and it's a minority well outside Obama's and all Democrats main line of support, so who cares what he says?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Tea Party caucus is a minority WITHIN the GOP. Both Boehner and McConnell repeated several times over that there would not be a default. Now the GOP knows that they just have to stall to the last minute every time because the Dems will simply cave every time.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
The Tea Party^1 caucus is sufficiently big that they need either Tea Party votes or democratic votes to pass a bill. Remember the timeline of events. On Thursday 29 July, Boehner had to postpone a vote on his bill because he did not have the votes and needed support from either democratic or Tea Party. Boehner then moved the bill further to the right. Bear in mind, this is a few days before the deadline when one might have expected a softening of stances. If nothing else, this should dispel the notion that Boehner has control of his caucus (the cancelling of the vote was something of a humiliation).
Remember, also, that McConnell put forward a way to resolve the debt ceiling issue which was discarded by the House out of hand.
Anyhow, I don't doubt that Boehner and McConnell realized the importance of raising the debt ceiling. I suspect that Boehner was even sincerely trying for a grand bargain. I just doubt that their opinions mattered much. And I don't blame the democrats for being unwilling to risk a default. Whether they should be blamed for not raising the debt ceiling the previous year is another matter....
1. I have no idea who is formally in the Tea Party caucus. By Tea Party caucus I basically mean that subset of Reps who are philosophically aligned with Bachman, West etc.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think the current situation in congress is kind of unique in there being a majority of one party in the House and a majority of the other in the Senate (do I have that right?) Honestly, how old were most of you during the Clinton admin? GHW Bush? Heck, I probably watched more news during the Reagan administration than I do now. These are not GOP dirty tricks. It's just folks being folks. Well, white male fraternity bro folks being folks.
Actually, that's not really true, in terms of frequency. Holds and filibusters and other procedural moves have gone up substantially in number in the last decade, particularly in the last 3 years; orders of magnitude greater than during the Reagan era.
There are a ton of federal judicial vacancies because of these shenanigans. And the frequency of shenanigans has correlated quite well to when the Republican party is in the minority.
And I do remember the Reagan era (the only time I voted for a Republican was in a 2nd-grade mock vote, in fact ).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm almost positive I voted for Ross Perot in our sixth grade election, but it was probably because his box was blue - my favorite color. Clinton was yellow, Dole was red.
I think I was three during Reagan's re-election campaign.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I voted Clinton in the sixth grade, but it was San Francisco- I don't think dole got any votes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't really develop a political identity until partway through high school.
My house was a political dead zone growing up. I don't recall my parents every saying a single word about ANYTHING political during my entire childhood.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I admit that the filibuster-by-default rule is stupid and I don't like it, and I believe it was enacted by a republican majority. I just thought "you boys are not always going to be in charge and then this stupid rule will bite you hard."
But one part of the tea party philosophy that I agree with is that going to Washington seems to turn lawmakers into careerist zombies. The alternative is to always have untried youths at the helm. :shrug:
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The alternative is to always have untried youths at the helm. :shrug:
I'm willing to volunteer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I didn't really develop a political identity until partway through high school.
My house was a political dead zone growing up. I don't recall my parents every saying a single word about ANYTHING political during my entire childhood.
That was exactly true for me. Then when I developed an identity very different from my mother, she suddenly opened the flood gates and I was totally unprepared for the deluge.
I suppose I should still applaud her for staying neutral until I graduated, came back from being a missionary for two years, and started voicing my opinions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I supported Reagan in the elementary school election because Carter had been president for as long as I could remember and I thought someone else should get a turn.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The alternative is to always have untried youths at the helm. :shrug:
I'm willing to volunteer.
Oh hush, you have none of the pre-requisites. Knowing you, you'd work hard, humbly ask questions, and in the end, make the tough decisions that you feel are necessary to lead us down the right path. Who wants that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'd be one glorious term that would lead to a best-selling memoir and a movie where I'm played by Ryan Gosling.
Or by some bizarre twist of fate they actually like me and re-elect me, in which case I'm pulled back into that soul-sucking vortex of cynicism.
Either way I'm good.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
Lyrhawn's got my vote. Seriously, if you want to run for something in Nebraska after you establish residency, I'd chip in five bucks.
I'm starting to feel for Mitt Romney. People can't remember him, and Herman Cain is now, uh, surging? What happens if Perry ever has a good debate, or when people realize Cain's not keeping much of a campaign schedule, is a good question, but I'll be stunned if/when he gets the nomination while never getting over 30% in polls of the GOP electorate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Tea Party^1 caucus is sufficiently big that they need either Tea Party votes or democratic votes to pass a bill.
I think this highlights the biggest problem the GOP is going to face in this election cycle. To win the nomination the GOP candidate has got to court the Tea Party because no matter how small a minority they are within the party, they are likely to constitute a majority of primary voters because they are activated. And to win the General Election, the GOP has got to get their base excited enough to show up at the polls in force.
But to win the General Election they are also going to have to appeal to middle and those two things are essentially mutually exclusive.
The GOP can either ignore the Tea Party and court the center (with the hope that Tea Party hatred of Obama will be enough to get those folks to the polls), or they can pay attention to the Tea Party and alienate the majority of Americans.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out and whether the democrats can capitalize on this divide in the GOP.
If Romney gets the nomination, I think there is a very real chance that one of the Christian Tea Party candidates will run as a third party candidate and split off enough of the conservative vote to swing the election.
[ October 07, 2011, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I hope they do that.
But honestly, I'm not terribly worried about 2012. I think the news and analysts are simply wrong. All the data they're looking at for likely voters already includes the votes of most conservatives, and even with that, any one of the candidates has far less support than all of them combined. When the election gets closer, all Obama will have to do is get out the vote- his base is simply a hell of a lot bigger than the conservative one. That, and none of his campaigning will have to focus on solid democratic states, as it did when he was fighting a primary battle last time around. So he has all the time in the world to focus on battleground states- and considering the victory he had last time around, I think Republicans would have a hell of a time catching up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:If Romney gets the nomination, I think there is a very real chance that one of the Christian Tea Party candidates will run as a third party candidate and split off enough of the conservative vote to swing the election.
I highly doubt it. I think a lot of them are three eggs short of a carton, but none of the candidates are that stupid. Even Palin outright said that running as a third party candidate guarantees a win for Obama. Ron Paul is probably the only one of them with enough individual support to even try, and I don't think he would.
Either a Tea Party favorite will get the nomination, or Romney will make one of them the VP candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either a Tea Party favorite will get the nomination, or Romney will make one of them the VP candidate.
That would be nice! It's (a) possible, and (b) would hurt them (the tea party is anathema to any crowd outside of really serious republicans)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree.
That's kind of the magic of the GOP though. They expel moderates and run to the right, so you're either going to get a Tea Party nominee, or you're going to get someone who is very aware of how un-conservative he is and will need to shore up the right flank, even if that's not actually true, it's the perception, and if it's Romney, he'll feel it even more because he's afraid of turning off evangelicals because he's Mormon. It's why McCain went for Palin, though in fairness I don't think he had a clue what he was getting himself into. He really should have chosen Kay Bailey Hutchinson if he wanted a woman VP.
On the bright side, if Romney is chosen and picks someone like Cain or Bachmann, it won't hurt him with moderates. He's a right-center Republican pretending to be a hard core righty right now, and as soon as the primaries are over, he'll tack right towards independents in swing states.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I would put the odds of Romney choosing Bachmann at nearly zero. Cain, maybe a bit better than zero, but still quite low.
Rubio's protestations notwithstanding, I think he's the most likely VP candidate if Romney heads the ticket. Cantor is another candidate I'd say is more likely than either Cain or Bachmann. Other legistlators that I think are somewhat likely are Rob Portman or John Thune. I think Romney'd probably shy away from choosing another governor, otherwise I'd say Bob McDonnell or Nikki Haley or John Kasich or Susanna Martinez. All of these, with the possible exception of Portman, have some Tea Party credibility, but are establishment enough that I doubt they'd polarize the general election campaign the way Palin's nomination did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rubio was my big guess from earlier. If a short list exists, I'm sure he's already on it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:When the election gets closer, all Obama will have to do is get out the vote- his base is simply a hell of a lot bigger than the conservative one.
Because Obama's base is invisible to pollsters somehow? Yeah, I know you hipsters only communicate, when voice is necessary, by burner phone.
I think it can be equally argued that Democrats suffer equally from the issue that the most motivated constituents are a bit out to lunch. I'd even say it's traditionally the case with Democrats, while it is a newish situation for republicans.
I also don't think there are really that many tea partyers. Tea party is not really the same as Christian Right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:“Many of them do have a level playing field,” Cain said. “I absolutely believe that. Not only because of the businesses that I have run, which has had the combination of whites, blacks, Hispanics - you know, we had a total diversity. But also because of the corporations whose board I've served on for the last 20 years. I have seen blacks in middle management move up to top management in some of the biggest corporations in America.”
As for African Americans who remain economically disadvantaged, Cain said they often only had themselves to blame.
“They weren't held back because of racism,” Cain said. “People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve.”
I'm going to call it at 2:30pm - Cain doesn't have a prayer with American's black vote.
And you know, it might just be a political ploy. He probably wouldn't have captured a great deal of the black vote anyway, and by channeling Booker T. Washington, he looks GREAT to the exact subsection of whites who might be leery about voting for him.
Of course, he's being ridiculous. While I think racism as a negative force in this country has been on a constant decline for decades, being black, especially, as he mentioned, in places like Detroit, means you grow up automatically disadvantaged because of a lack of education opportunities and urban decay. We live in a state of de facto housing and school discrimination because we never really desegregated, and efforts in the 80s to really try and force the issue collapsed. I really don't see how he could ignore that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, he could if he were...what's the phrase...lacking in integrity?
Anyway, like you, I suspect this is more political ploy than honest autobiography on his part. Hearing from a successful black man that racism ain't no thing anymore is, afterall, something GOP primary voters would (and will) *love* to hear.
It's always interested me, the way human beings are willing to think we can just 'get over' problems such as racism. That's not a penetrating insight, far from it, but still often surprising to me. Fundamental, *built-in* aspect of our culture for nearly *half a millenium* here in our piece of North America. Swept aside in a couple of generations! Gone, no longer an impediment. Easy!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From the looks of things, Huntsman will be out when (and if) he fails to do well in New Hampshire. Cain is going to seriously contend in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. Romney is looking at New Hampshire and Nevada for big wins. Perry appears to be the number two or three man, but if Perry and Cain split the uber-conservative vote, Romney might pop out ahead.
Hard to say, but it's odd that the new top tier is Cain, Romney and Perry, possibly in that order.
I think Cain will rise or fall in the coming weeks for a lot of reasons. His 9-9-9 Plan is finally coming under increased scrutiny, and a lot of it is bad. Most reviews I've seen have said two things: 1. It probably can't replace the current revenue structure. 2. It will shift some of the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
That will kill him in the General, and frankly I'd think it'd hurt him in the primary. Even the Tea Party has majority support for tax hikes on the rich.
But no one really knows anything else about him. That plan is the basis for his campaign. As his other positions come out, he'll rise or fall accordingly. His views on race are new and interesting (read: bizarre), though I expect that kind of stuff will help him in the primaries. I don't know. There's another debate tonight that is supposed to focus on the economy, where I expect Cain will play a much larger role than he has in the past, where the debates focused on Perry and Romney.
It will be interesting to see if the moderators make an effort to include Cain more and give him more face time. It's no secret they've played favorites.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Didn't realize Romney was on top in Iowa, or that Cain was doing even that well. If they got one/two in the first two states, then flip flop in Florida and South Carolina, it could turn into a real horse race, especially if Bachmann, Perry and Paul all drop out. I have to imagine most of their support flows to Cain, but there's no way of knowing. I'd love to see some polls where the lesser candidates drop out and it's just a two or three man race.
I think Romney has the advantage. He's a known entity, though I've seen some bizarre polls recently that say Romney is LESS well known now than he was in 2007/2008, which is odd. Cain on the other hand has a lot of room to make himself known, which could be received well or not so well. Look what happened to Perry when the shine wore off. I do, however, think that Cain is a lot more polished than Perry (which is surprising since pretty much every politico is shocked by how terrible Perry has been in debates when he's had so much practice at the state level). He appears fairly unflappable and confident.
Things are getting a little interesting.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Romney is moving quickly with the Christie endorsement, as he did with the Pawlenty endorsement. It seems a bit surprising as a strategy to me.
I don't think Cain has serious policy chops. His 9-9-9 plan has been pretty roundly condemned, as you say, and his pronouncements on other issues from foreign policy to social issues suggest a lack of in-depth understanding. I think his rise will ebb again within the month and Perry will again be the default anti-Romney candidate.
That said, I think Cain's got a more interesting biography than he's usually given credit for. A BA in Math, and MS in Computer Science; ballistics missile engineer for the Navy; published a paper in a top-tier, peer-reviewed academic journal (Interfaces); systems analyst with Coca-Cola; director of business analysis for Pillsbury; Chairman of the Kansas City Fed; associate minister at his local church; cancer survivor; married for 43 years. A lot gets left out when he's referred to exclusively as "the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I am pretty confident that Romney will win Nevada. He won here in 2008 very easily. There is a large LDS population here and going to the primary in 2008 was like a huge Ward reunion.
I will vote for him simply because he is Right-Center, not because he is LDS. He has shown in the past he is willing to work with Democrats, and I think we desperately need this. Nothing against President Obama, I just think Romney would be able to work with both Republicans and Democrats a little better in getting stuff done.
Rubio would be a pretty good pick for any candidate, and there is also talk of Paul Ryan being on the short list. I guess we will see!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Nothing against President Obama, I just think Romney would be able to work with both Republicans and Democrats a little better in getting stuff done.
As long as Republicans refuse to work with a Democratic president and Democrats try desperately to appear bi-partisan, this will remain a truism. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Getting stuff done" is not necessarily a good thing. It depends entirely on the stuff that is getting done. If one is getting stuff done that is bad stuff - say most of the stuff that got done under President Bush - then I hope that people are not better at getting stuff done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That video is awesome.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Of course it is.
But it's working so well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Of course it is.
But it's working so well.
Yes, which makes me despair over the future of the country and the world. Are the American people really that dumb? Are their memories really that short? Are they truly so incapable of critical thinking? People have more access to information than at any time in the world's history and yet they are more poorly informed.
It's . . . I'm not even sure what word could capture it. I need a word that adequately encompasses annoying, disturbing, frustrating, alarming, demoralizing, depressing, and troubling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Despair?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is a serious question, Geraine, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to phrase it so it's not a gotcha or anything. Sorry about that.
The question is, why do you think it's a good thing to, well, reward the current Republican policy (admitted even by top Republican politicaisn) of ironclad obstructionism by electing a Republican politician who will 'work better' with Congress to get things done?
I'm not suggesting that ought to add up, for you, to 'Vote Obama!' or anything. But your inclusion of 'working better' as a reason just struck me as really strange. Republicans obstruct for the sake of obstruction. Result: people elect a Republican president to better work with Congress?
How is that not a transparent, extortionate political policy approach?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb] [QUOTE]I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
People have more access to information than at any time in the world's history and yet they are more poorly informed.
On the latter part I'm dubious. I would say more people are better informed, than at any other time in our nation's history. I would also say though that to vote seriously on many political issues a person must reach a basic quotient of political knowledge.
We have a greater number of better informed sub-quotient voters, but we also have truckloads of lazy people who don't realize how much damage their apathy towards voting harms our nation as a whole. With voting around 30%, we need a new term for what our democracy is. Theoretically we could be called democratic, but 1 : 3 people voting isn't government by the people, it's government by some people, selected by other people, while most people don't participate. A minoritocracy so to speak.
It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Despair?
Yes, I used that one but I need a transitive verb. I can despair, but a situation can't despair me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It is a fair enough point Rakeesh, you phrased it well.
I am not saying what the Republicans have done in Congress is right and they should be "rewarded" with the presidency. Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side of the isle. If he becomes the candidate, he will be the most moderate candidate between him and the president.
My voting republican in the presidential race has nothing to do with the republicans in congress. They are two different branches of government, and to be honest I haven't been pleased with the House or Senate republicans. In the next election, I will look at who is running and make my decision based on their records. If I feel they are not willing to work with democrats or play nice, I'll vote them out.
I am not someone that just chooses everyone with an "R" by their name. I voted for Harry Reid because I thought Sharon Angle was a horrible candidate. I may not like Harry Reid, but he is from my state and is the Majority Leader. I like having that.
One last point and I myself am going to have a hard time explaining it....
If any other Republican candidate OTHER than Romney wins the election, it won't help. Democrats in the Senate would be VERY careful about any legislation passed, and we would see more and more bills DOA in the Senate. They would do this because they wouldn't hold the executive branch, and frankly if someone like Michelle Bachmann were president I wouldn't blame them.
Likewise, if Obama wins re-election Republicans will without a doubt continue to obstruct any legislation written by a Democrat.
I see Romney as being the only person that is moderate enough to commit to working with the Democrats and (hopefully) strong arming the Republicans to work it out. He's done it in the past, and I think he would do it again.
I hope I explained that well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
I think the apathy is a result of the disfunctional, money driven two party system. Both parties are beholden the same monied interest and so the difference between them is very small and rarely of real consequence to the average citizen.
Take health care for example. People may care very much about getting affordable insurance and still not be motivated to vote because they don't believe either party will do anything that makes a real difference. Can you blame them? Health care reform has been being debated for over 3 decades. The party in power has changed several times and still nothing has really changed. Despite the viciousness of the fights over Obama care, its at best a baby step that may create more problems than it fixes. The same thing is true with lots of other issues. Voters aren't apathetic because they don't care about anything. They are apathetic because they don't believe the election will make a difference to the things they care about.
I also don't think apathy is the major problem. If we could get 90% of the people to the polls but they didn't have any better judgment than the current voters, we wouldn't be any better off.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side...
Well, yes...because the people he has to work with *aren't* Congressional Republicans. Romney has a better record of not getting mugged because people don't try to mug him near as much as the guy targeted by a gang of muggers.
quote:...nothing to do with the republicans in congress. They are two different branches of government...
Except that members of that branch are behaving the way they are in large part to win the *other* branch. I don't see how, if we're involving bipartisanship, the two aren't linked.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, you do a fine job of explaining how Gov. Romney would be better at getting stuff passed but you don't address whether the stuff getting passed is good or bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Err, isn't his answer pretty obvious, based on his politics as expressed on HR? Not unlike it wouldn't be hard to guess who, or to a lesser extent why, you think Obama would work to pass better things than Romney?
Put another way, Romney is right of center and so is Geraine, making your question unexpected.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side...
Romney doesn't have much of a track record in politics at all. He served as governor of Mass. for only 4 years. He was a republican Gov. in a liberal state so he had to work with Dem. if he wanted to do anything. During the first half of his term, the Dem's were willing to work with him but by the end of his term, his relationship with congressional Dems had completely disintegrated.
I don't think that track record says anything about whether or not he will be able to work across the aisles in a highly charged partisan environment.
If the democrats decided to close ranks and obstruct anything the GOP tried to do, I can't see why Romney would be more successful than Obama has been.
The only reason Romney is more likely to be able to work with Democrats than Obama has been able to work with the GOP, is that the Democrats have historically been far less effective at closing ranks to oppose anything. Its simply easier to get a few Democrats to cross the aisle and support a GOP proposal than it is to get Republicans to do the same.
Voting for a Republican President because congressional democrats are more likely to compromise than their GOP counterparts, punishes political parties that are willing to compromise to get things done and rewards those who care more about having power than solving problems. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.
I mean, it is remotely possible that if the GOP tactics work, the Democrats could get organized enough to do the same thing. Then we'd have complete government stalemate regardless of who was in the majority.
edited to add: I guess we could get around that stalemate if one party held the Presidency, the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate but moving to a one party system would have a host of disadvantages of its own.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
I think the apathy is a result of the disfunctional, money driven two party system. Both parties are beholden the same monied interest and so the difference between them is very small and rarely of real consequence to the average citizen.
Take health care for example. People may care very much about getting affordable insurance and still not be motivated to vote because they don't believe either party will do anything that makes a real difference. Can you blame them? Health care reform has been being debated for over 3 decades. The party in power has changed several times and still nothing has really changed. Despite the viciousness of the fights over Obama care, its at best a baby step that may create more problems than it fixes. The same thing is true with lots of other issues. Voters aren't apathetic because they don't care about anything. They are apathetic because they don't believe the election will make a difference to the things they care about.
I also don't think apathy is the major problem. If we could get 90% of the people to the polls but they didn't have any better judgment than the current voters, we wouldn't be any better off.
If we could get 90% of the people to the pools, then politicians saying that they have a national referendum on something, might actually be accurate.
Because so few people are voting, legislators recognize they don't actually need to appeal to all voters, just placate the constituancies that actually vote. As for people being ignorant voters, that's just a feature of democracy, there's no way out, short of requiring people pass some sort of exam to qualify for voting.
You can of course try requiring people vote or else face a fine, in which case some may educate themselves to a degree before going to the voting office, but most would then just vote to get it over with without thinking.
I just don't see any serious way you could get only knowledgable people voting, without just going back to the days where only the rich, educated, land owner class were permitted to vote.
[ October 11, 2011, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]If we could get 90% of the people to the pools , then politicians saying that they have a national referendum on something, might actually be accurate.
But just imagine the urine content of the water if you actually got that kind of turnout.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bah, fixed.
Pools might actually draw more voters than polls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also, Obama officially calls it like many are seeing it.
I do believe there are many Republicans who are of the opinion that the main thrust of our economic policy must be shrinking the size of government and cutting spending, and that everything else must follow that first.
I also believe the Democrat's plan for fixing our economy is lackluster at best. We do need infrastructural development, and teachers in classrooms, but we need to make things here in the United States. It doesn't have to be machine parts, though that might be a part of it, but it could be high end electronics, machines that only exist on paper now, but will be built en masse.
The objects like the Iphone should be constructed here. Sure it's cost would go up significantly, but we could find a way to stagger the cost, as more and more industries move back here. Americans need practical skills, and jobs that require them. Pay to train Americans in a variety of jobs and technical professions, that can be cross applied into the private sector.
Stimulus for clunker cars, new home owners, were good in intention, but the real problem here is people don't have jobs, and more importantly they don't have disposable income they are comfortable spending. So jump start industries that in the long term will provide those goods and services. The one thing good thing Obama's plan does is reward businesses that hire the unemployed. It has surface level tax changes that are generally good, but we have to dig deeper into our pockets and actually start paying back the debt.
This post is incomplete, but I won't be able to finish these thoughts piecemeal at work, so this will have to suffice for now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rabbit is pretty much sucking my thoughts directly from my brain and typing them up as posts.
I totally agree with her.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No one clicked my link
Another means of solving the problem is to have a viable system to allow for third parties in the House and Senate, but stay out of the presidency OR have a staggered voting system based on preference so that if Preferred Candidate Loses go to Secondary.
Suppose we have Dems (Right-Center to Right), Republicans (Right to Far Right) and while we're fantasizing here the (making up name) Social Liberal American Workers Solidarity Party (Left of Left-Center) who had say, a decent 80 seats in the House and 20 Seats in the Senate.
The dems could easily work with them, the replicans would need serious concessions to get any votes from them, they could filibuster every bill to the moon if they wanted to because they're base is likely to be willing to vote for them based on principle instead of governence and eventually we can drag the political system of America kicking and screaming back leftwards.
And then they could strategically work with dems to either not run in strong or border line dem districts to prevent vote splitting (or if we have a by preference ballot, etc) while focusing efforts with dems to combat republicans while only tokenly competing with each other and then having the vote if the dems lose to the socialists, and if the socialists lose and vice versa to prevent a split vote and hopefully turn a few red districts.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No one clicked my link
I watched a little bit of it. I thought it was funny that in a video supporting Ron Paul's position of closing foreign bases, they also violated a stance of Ron Paul's which is not to use inflamed rhetoric to motivate action. Specifically, Ron Paul thinks it's bad to marginalize countries with faulty war rhetoric, yet in this video they emphasized 'evil' countries with, "Imagine if CHINESE or RUSSIAN troops were based in Texas!"
... Um... yeah. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's, but if you're going to make a video supporting him a couple suggestions. 1) Don't use Mind Heist for your background music. 2) Don't defend your candidate in a means that goes against what your candidate stands for.
ETA: Apparently the author created his own music. So I guess my suggestion is not to rip off Mind Heist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Bah, fixed.
Pools might actually draw more voters than polls.
You didn't fix it... But it's okay, I think posterity will appreciate your slip up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
I'm not sure you are fully getting what "cognitive dissonance" is all about.
These two beliefs: that America should be allowed to exercise global influence, and that other specific countries should not, is not per se, logically inconsistent. One might feel that America, for all its faults, has a positive impact on the world, and that an aggressive China would not be so benevolent. One could believe that and not experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance. They might be wrong, but having those beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that a person is doing the kind of mental arithmetic wherein 2+2=5 when it comes to China, and 4 when it comes to the US- China and the US are different enough that you can base that kind of belief on a broader set of terms.
Cognitive dissonance comes in when, for example, you are extremely hawkish and pro-American in foreign affairs, and believe that American values are the answer to the world's problems, and then you decry American society at home and talk about bringing down the government because it is treading on you. Loving what your government does to other people "in their best interest," and hating when that same government gets involved in your life. I think a lot of people suffer from that kind of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
To BlackBlade's link above:
"Republicans are destroying the economy on purpose" is the Obama-era version of "Democrats who oppose the war want al-Qaeda to win." It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans. That Obama and his team would stoop to making such an accusation lowers my opinion of him and the strength of his conviction in those ideals that were the centerpiece of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Republicans are destroying the economy on purpose" is the Obama-era version of "Democrats who oppose the war want al-Qaeda to win." It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans.
It does not require that at all. Obama's accusation isn't that rank and file Republicans care more about political gain that people's lives. If it were, there would be absolutely no point in making the claim. The claim is some Republican leaders are more concerned with political gain than with the lives of their fellow Americans and the point in making that claim is to persuade the vast majority of republican who do care more about people than partisan politics to stop supporting these sociopaths.
The idea that a huge number of basically decent people could be duped into following sociopathic leaders is entirely believable. It happens all the time. The question you need to consider is whether or not these accusation accurate describe that the GOP congressional leadership has been doing for the past several years or not. In my mind, its spot on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It's a facile accusation that, in order to be believed, requires you to imagine that a broad swath of the country cares more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans.
Well, heck, I would say that's indisputable fact, depending on how you're defining "broad swath." If you mean a broad enough swath, I don't see how you could even contest the claim.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, hate to break it to you, but if that's the criteria for making the claim make sense ..
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, you do a fine job of explaining how Gov. Romney would be better at getting stuff passed but you don't address whether the stuff getting passed is good or bad.
I can't explain whether it is good or bad, because we are dealing with a hypothetical.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Romney doesn't have much of a track record in politics at all. He served as governor of Mass. for only 4 years. He was a republican Gov. in a liberal state so he had to work with Dem. if he wanted to do anything. During the first half of his term, the Dem's were willing to work with him but by the end of his term, his relationship with congressional Dems had completely disintegrated.
I this paragraph fairly strange since Obama had no experience whatsoever working in an executive role prior to becoming President, and now with Romney it all of the sudden matters.
quote:
I don't think that track record says anything about whether or not he will be able to work across the aisles in a highly charged partisan environment.
If the democrats decided to close ranks and obstruct anything the GOP tried to do, I can't see why Romney would be more successful than Obama has been.
Romney could have played Mr. Obstructionist as governor during his four years. Instead he worked with Democrats to get some pretty massive legislation passed. He could have vetoed every bill that came across his desk. Relations with Democrats may have deteriorated over time, but there was a lot that was accomplished during the time they worked together.
I think Democrats have shown in the past few years that they want to get things done, they haven't really obstructed anything. I'm not sure if you are saying they will or not. I'm hoping they don't.
quote:
The only reason Romney is more likely to be able to work with Democrats than Obama has been able to work with the GOP, is that the Democrats have historically been far less effective at closing ranks to oppose anything. Its simply easier to get a few Democrats to cross the aisle and support a GOP proposal than it is to get Republicans to do the same.
Voting for a Republican President because congressional democrats are more likely to compromise than their GOP counterparts, punishes political parties that are willing to compromise to get things done and rewards those who care more about having power than solving problems. That's a very dangerous precedent to set.
I mean, it is remotely possible that if the GOP tactics work, the Democrats could get organized enough to do the same thing. Then we'd have complete government stalemate regardless of who was in the majority.
edited to add: I guess we could get around that stalemate if one party held the Presidency, the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate but moving to a one party system would have a host of disadvantages of its own.
My point is this. If you look at all of the other candidates running and if one of them won against Obama, who would you want that person to be? Bachmann? Perry? The only two candidates that I think would do a good job working with Congress and not obstructing every little thing would be Paul and Romney. The rest in my opinion are nut jobs. I know it is extremely early in the election cycle, but right now it isn't looking good for the President. Generic Republican is now higher than he is in the polls, and that does not bode well for him.
Clinton is a very good example of a president that was able to work with the other side of the isle, often times against his own party. I realize that the political atmosphere right now is completely different, but my hope is that some of the hardcore Tea Party representatives get voted out and the House is a little easier to work with. Believe it or not if a Romney won I would be happy if the Democrats took the majority in the House back. In my opinion government works best when one party controls the legislative branch and the other party controls the executive branch.
Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Possibly, but it is an excellent example to make because it is the point most easily able to exploit the cognitive dissonance of the American right. "Its okay for US to occupy THEM" - When asking about the justification of the Iraq war and other foreign adventures, while pointing out for example, that China owns significant interests in the United States and for example owns a stake in the Panama canal (and attempting to buy various American oil companies) "OMG CHINA OWNS WHAT!?"
I'm not sure you are fully getting what "cognitive dissonance" is all about.
These two beliefs: that America should be allowed to exercise global influence, and that other specific countries should not, is not per se, logically inconsistent. One might feel that America, for all its faults, has a positive impact on the world, and that an aggressive China would not be so benevolent. One could believe that and not experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance. They might be wrong, but having those beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that a person is doing the kind of mental arithmetic wherein 2+2=5 when it comes to China, and 4 when it comes to the US- China and the US are different enough that you can base that kind of belief on a broader set of terms.
Cognitive dissonance comes in when, for example, you are extremely hawkish and pro-American in foreign affairs, and believe that American values are the answer to the world's problems, and then you decry American society at home and talk about bringing down the government because it is treading on you. Loving what your government does to other people "in their best interest," and hating when that same government gets involved in your life. I think a lot of people suffer from that kind of cognitive dissonance.
My point is consistent with your definition, I know what cognitive dissonance means I am a PoliSci student. The American people want America to be Number 1, even if it means abusing their superpower status to keep down 5.7 billion people;. and go completely insane once the tables are turned and those countries start doing likewise to increase their standard of living.
On a related note I believe Pawlenty just basically justified Chinese military spending increases to the point that several Chinese Generals watching the debate just punched the air (since now they will get MORE money) with his "I want to go to war with China, I want to beat China." I can't even be sure watching the whole thing that if it could even be taken out of context. Even if Xinhua was to spin it as a "metaphor" there's still going to be a huge nationalist backlash for America "trying to keep China down."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit & Tom-
I'll amend the statement to read "requires you to imagine that <edit>the accuser's political opponents</edit> care more about short-term political gain than the lives of their fellow Americans."
I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." It's a long way from an embrace of the politics of hope over the politics of cynicism to "[Republicans'] strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The American people want America to be Number 1, even if it means abusing their superpower status to keep down 5.7 billion people;. and go completely insane once the tables are turned and those countries start doing likewise to increase their standard of living.
Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. If you believe that America should be #1, even if it means abusing our superpower status, it is perfectly consistent with your worldview that America go insane once other countries challenge that status.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."
Odd. I think it's perfectly consistent with that statement; it requires only the belief that his policies have largely been opposed by the spinmasters and ad peddlers, rather than people concerned with America. I suspect that Obama did not realize how thoroughly national politics had been corrupted by those "spinmasters" when he made the statement; his actions certainly imply someone who genuinely tried in good faith to work with people who surprised him by being a bunch of unreasonable jerks.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Interpreting it that way seems tantamount to sucking any goodness out of Obama's original sentiment. In your reading who are the spin-masters? Obama's opponents. Who are those who seek to divide us? Republicans. It turns Obama's paean to unity into a tool of crass partisan politics.
I think your characterization of Obama's actions, and the reactions of his opponents, is seriously biased.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Geraine: Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
I don't see how you could have lived in America for the last three years and think this is true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In your reading who are the spin-masters? Obama's opponents.
Not quite. In Obama's original statement, he is saying that there are spin-masters out there trying to divide America, but that this shouldn't be permitted; the implication is that he will do his best to work across the partisan divide. He then, as President, made herculean attempts to be be bi-partisan, only to see those attempts spun as either weakness or, ludicrously, liberal extremism; he encountered an opposition determined -- for purely political reasons -- to reject any of his actions. This clearly caught him and his administration off-balance. I don't think he expected the level of vitriol and self-serving demonization that he suffered at their hands, and I'm willing to forgive him for coming to the conclusion that I came to much earlier: that the "spin-masters" already own most of his opposition.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As I said, I think your interpretation of the events of the last two years is significantly biased.
Imputing opposition to "purely political reasons" suggests you can't envision a principled oppositional stance. I don't like what the Republican leadership has done in the last three years and I don't agree with them on many things. But suggesting that Republicans' opposition has necessarily been a bad faith effort to obstruct for the sole purpose of political gain is the heart and soul of the politics of cynicism.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
SenojRetep, I think all of us are biased but honestly I can't think of any examples where the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness to work with Obama and the congressional democrats, but the democrats have refused. Since you seem to be aware of such things, can you please give us some examples?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Imputing opposition to "purely political reasons" suggests you can't envision a principled oppositional stance.
I can envision quite a few of them. I don't think any of them were held, however.
---------
I'm actually a bit surprised to hear The New Republic still described by people as a liberal mag. In the circles in which I travel, it's been considered a Trojan Horse for neocons since the mid-'80s.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I this paragraph fairly strange since Obama had no experience whatsoever working in an executive role prior to becoming President, and now with Romney it all of the sudden matters.
This smacks of...well, a total dodge. You were the one who mentioned Romney's experience, thus it's hardly unfair or strange to have that statement examined.
quote:Romney could have played Mr. Obstructionist as governor during his four years. Instead he worked with Democrats to get some pretty massive legislation passed. He could have vetoed every bill that came across his desk. Relations with Democrats may have deteriorated over time, but there was a lot that was accomplished during the time they worked together.
He could have, theoretically, yes. If he were akin to a modern Congressional Republican, he very likely would have. Fortunately that doesn't appear to be the case, though you do wish to reward Republican obstructionism in Congress with the White House.
quote:My point is this. If you look at all of the other candidates running and if one of them won against Obama, who would you want that person to be? Bachmann? Perry? The only two candidates that I think would do a good job working with Congress and not obstructing every little thing would be Paul and Romney. The rest in my opinion are nut jobs. I know it is extremely early in the election cycle, but right now it isn't looking good for the President. Generic Republican is now higher than he is in the polls, and that does not bode well for him.
Well, I'll agree with this. Perry and Bachmann are pretty awful (though I don't actually think they're nutjobs, I think they're scumbags). I don't understand how that translates as a vote for Romney unless the rationale is 'not Obama', and I still don't understand how you can divorce Congressional Republican behavior from the Republican contenders for the White House.
After all, they don't-that is, Republican leadership. Getting Obama out of the White House and a Republican in is the point of the behavior you're objecting to.
quote:Likewise, I would be fine with Obama winning re-election if the Republicans won the Senate. This would pretty much force the President and Congress to work together to get stuff done. I'd prefer Democrats take back the House though, I think they are more willing to work with the other side of the isle.
Like Lyrhawn, this is just baffling to me. I don't understand how someone could look at Congress right now and say it would be better if, should Obama win, Republicans have more control if you're also going to object to obstructionism.
--------
quote:I still call it contemptible, a slander that is beneath the politician who once said "[T]here are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America." It's a long way from an embrace of the politics of hope over the politics of cynicism to "[Republicans'] strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory."
*shrug* In effect I believe similar things to what Rabbit and Tom are saying. I think the intent is different. "We've gotta, we've just gotta, get Obama out of the White House. For America! That's what's most important, because we are what's best for the country! Therefore the long-term good will be served by the short-term constant pissing contest."
Put another way, I really do believe that Republican leaders believe (though for some of them, I think-much like any politician-it's a matter of telling themselves what they want to hear) that America will be better off if Obama loses, Republicans win, and etc. I don't understand how you can claim, though, that the method they've chosen to pursue this long-term good is anything other than obstructionist and short-term destructive.
"Win back the White House and Congress, and then..."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Just a few data points: - McConnell has said his number one job is to make Obama a one-term president. - At the outset of the debate over healthcare DeMint talked of making it Obama's Waterloo. - The healthcare plan is based on a Heritage foundation devised plan and is very similar to a plan introduced by a Republican governor, yet is characterized as socialism. - A Republican inserts some provisions for end of life care into the healthcare reform, which Republicans subsequently characterize as "death panels".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually a bit surprised to hear The New Republic still described by people as a liberal mag. In the circles in which I travel, it's been considered a Trojan Horse for neocons since the mid-'80s.
Pauline Kael* alert.
*Yes, I know it's likely apocryphal.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
You know, I swore to myself when I made that post that I'd let it sit all day and not waste work time responding to people's posts. I'm so weak-willed.
natural_mystic, extrapolating from those few data points (primarily distilled from the healthcare debate rather than that over how best to help the economy recover) to "Republicans want to destroy the economy, thereby destroying millions of Americans' lives, just so they can win the next election" takes an enormous amount of squinting. Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason is Ann Coulter sort of stuff. I expect better from our President.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: SenojRetep, I think all of us are biased but honestly I can't think of any examples where the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness to work with Obama and the congressional democrats, but the democrats have refused. Since you seem to be aware of such things, can you please give us some examples?
Rabbit, my argument isn't that Republicans haven't acted in a partisan way. It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy. To equate partisan opposition to willfully destroying the economy purely for political gain is reprehensible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy.
That's not their end goal. That's just the means.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
No. I accept that its possible, but I find it exceptionally unlikely. To believe such an accusation, I'd need pretty damning evidence (along the lines of John Boehner saying, "This is going to lead to an absolute disaster. Thousands of people hurt or dead. Obama will be totally hamstrung! Yipee!") I think jumping to such a conclusion on the basis of the somewhat elevated partisanship of the past two years seems pretty cynical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rabbit, my argument isn't that Republicans haven't acted in a partisan way. It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy. To equate partisan opposition to willfully destroying the economy purely for political gain is reprehensible.
I agree that they're not doing this with the intent to destroy the economy. I don't even think, were they entirely successful in all their aims, even hypothetical guessed-at unspoken aims, those things would destroy the economy if done.
I do think, though, that this goes quite a lot further than 'partisan opposition', rather like someone mouthing off to a cop is generally described differently than a protestor engaging in some civil disobedience. I also think that they're willing to obstruct just about all Democratic efforts to fix the economy. And not just because they're afraid they'll be bad for the economy, but also to get Obama out of the White House.
It's all very circular. We're not going to find a cache of secret documents that reveal what is actually being thought at the high levels of Republican politics. Their secret minds aren't ever going to be known. What can be known is that, in recent history, there's Democratic partisan politics in one area, and then on a whole other level there's Republican partisan politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Give historians credit.
We'll find out someday.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Senoj - My data points were supposed to be illustrative rather than definitive. I think they do show that the GOP are not acting in good faith as far as finding the right policy. Btw where did the word 'treason' come from?
Do you believe, say, that the decision to replace/repair infrastructure now is bad policy in light of the favorable borrowing costs the US government currently has, the fact that the infrastructure is demonstrably aging and will have to be replaced/repaired in the near future, the fact that the construction labor market is such that labor costs should be lower than when at full employment?
So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Suggesting that opposition, even baldly partisan opposition, is necessarily equivalent to treason...
Do you believe that no baldly partisan opposition can be "treasonous," or at least constitute -- as is actually being claimed here -- a deliberate decision to harm America or Americans in order to secure power?
No. I accept that its possible, but I find it exceptionally unlikely. To believe such an accusation, I'd need pretty damning evidence (along the lines of John Boehner saying, "This is going to lead to an absolute disaster. Thousands of people hurt or dead. Obama will be totally hamstrung! Yipee!") I think jumping to such a conclusion on the basis of the somewhat elevated partisanship of the past two years seems pretty cynical.
Sufficient negligence is indistinguishable from malice.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy.
That's not their end goal. That's just the means.
If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.
That politicians can be short-sighted I have no doubt; that they can be petty and partisan I whole-heartedly agree; that they sometimes care more about their jobs than acting responsibly, I'd sadly concur; that they care so much about political power that they would deliberately set out to hurt people just to win an election, I think is cynical beyond reason. That that was necessarily the case here, as is suggested in Carney's quote, I find extremely objectionable.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rakeesh,
I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.
Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.
Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.
Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
That they disagree that it's good policy or that it'll be good for the economy or both. That would be my default assumption. Maybe, given some evidence of baser motives, I'd think that they believe the outcome is ambiguous but they don't want to give the President a win. It would take a lot more evidence than I see present to jump to, "they know it'll help, and they see that as a problem, because they believe the more people who are hurting, the better for them politically."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: That politicians can be short-sighted I have no doubt; that they can be petty and partisan I whole-heartedly agree; that they sometimes care more about their jobs than acting responsibly, I'd sadly concur; that they care so much about political power that they would deliberately set out to hurt people just to win an election, I think is cynical beyond reason. That that was necessarily the case here, as is suggested in Carney's quote, I find extremely objectionable.
There have been many public sector layoffs in the last few years. I have no doubt that the politicians who decide to make these cuts knew it would suck for the workers in question but did some sort of cost-benefit analysis and decided it would be 'best' to do this. Likewise when politicians decided to [eta cut] treatments available under Medicaid. Why do you think it terrible to suggest that Republicans have done this sort of cost-benefit analysis to say that the suffering induced on the unemployed is worth it as it will take us all a step closer (or step back) to that time of unfettered freedom, as it was in the 1880s, or whatever? In particular, what is cynical about suggesting that Republicans believe that better policy now leads to worse outcomes later?
[ October 12, 2011, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: So, if it's good policy AND it's good for the economy, including employment, then what conclusion should be drawn about someone who prefers that it not be enacted?
That they disagree that it's good policy or that it'll be good for the economy or both. That would be my default assumption. Maybe, given some evidence of baser motives, I'd think that they believe the outcome is ambiguous but they don't want to give the President a win. It would take a lot more evidence than I see present to jump to, "they know it'll help, and they see that as a problem, because they believe the more people who are hurting, the better for them politically."
You can, to a degree, test these hypotheses against what is said. For example, have substantive arguments been made for why this is bad policy. If they haven't made such arguments then why not?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: In particular, what is cynical about suggesting that Republicans believe that better policy now leads to worse outcomes later?
I'm not sure how you got from "[t]heir strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory" to "better policy now leads to worse outcomes later." If you understand Obama's statement to be, "Republicans are blocking my legislation for what they misguidedly believe to be the long-term good of the country" I'm not sure what we're talking about. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'd grant to SenojRetep that the Republican leadership's end goal isn't to destroy the economy. That would imply that they want to achieve a destroyed economy, and I don't think that's their goal. Their goal is to make President Obama a one term president as evidenced by natural-mystic. The issue is that there are a sufficient number of influential republicans who are so focused on that goal of making President Obama a one term president that they'll use whatever means necessary. President Obama has made the claim that there are Republicans purposefully destroying the economy for political gain. So the question isn't whether they want to destroy the economy, the question is whether they're willing to destroy the economy to achieve their objectives. I'm inclined to believe that there are those who would be willing to burn the country down if it means they get to be king of the ash pile. As Tom Davidson put it, it's not that destroying the economy is their end goal, it's the means.
ETA: Blayne, to clarify the cognitive dissonance. Tom's right that it isn't cognitively dissonant to want America to be number one, but then be pissed off when others want to be number one as well. What would be cognitively dissonant is if you embrace a realist worldview of international politics that says that all countries seek to better their position relative to others. Then from this worldview, you view the United States as justified in their foreign presence, but to then argue that others are not justified in pursuing a presence of their own would be cognitively dissonant. The difference between the two positions is that one embraces a more liberal worldview which posits that American supremacy is best and should be modeled around the world, the other is a realist perspective. You're claiming that people who support Americans abroad are cognitively dissonant because it goes against their realist view. The issue is that they're not realist when they're angry with others coming in, they're liberal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Rakeesh,
I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.
Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.
Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.
Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
What I keep missing is what you mean my Congress "working". What would it mean for to for Congress to "work"? "Get going" and do what?
You do understand that the consequences of President Obama and the congressional Democrats calling the bluff of the Republicans in at least two recent major standoffs would have resulted in even more serious blows to the economy (not extending unemployment and defaulting). That would have been harmful to a lot of people who can't stand much more harm. The Republican have nothing to lose by this politically. The worse off people are the more likely they are to vote against the current President.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.
I don't understand what it even means to oppose something for the sole purpose of opposing it. It's equivalent to saying the republicans have no reason for opposing these proposals whatsoever. Their doing it for laughs or out of habit or something.
But even if that was the case initially, there are consequences to opposing something that could help a lot of people. Politicians have a moral obligation to think about the how their votes will effect people. I don't really care whether the republicans don't care that their political tactics are hurting people or just aren't concerned enough to think about whether their political tactics are hurting people. That seems like splitting hairs. Either way, they care more about scoring political points for the long term than they do the immediate welfare of the American people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:“I guess Republicans think that if the economy improves, it might help President Obama,” Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “So they root for the economy to fail.”
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's the suggestion they've done it with the intent of destroying the economy.
That's not their end goal. That's just the means.
If Republicans were accused of opposing Obama's proposals for the sole purpose of opposing, I wouldn't find that particularly objectionable. It's the accusation that they're blocking Obama's proposals in order to destroy the economy, because it will hurt people and that will in turn hurt Obama, that I find cynical and objectionable.
There is indeed a fine line between malice and negligence. How many republicans are opposing forward movement out ofspite and political positioning? Probably all of them are to a degree. How many *would* do so in the face of adversely negative consequences to a large number of their constituents? How many actually want those adversely negative consequences to occur? Difficult distinctions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So the question isn't whether they want to destroy the economy, the question is whether they're willing to destroy the economy to achieve their objectives.
After the debt ceiling debacle, I don't think that's even a question. A fair number of republicans are on record as being willing to send the US government into bankruptcy, causing global economic chaos, in order to achieve their objectives.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Senoj- You're claiming that the statement from Obama's camp is unduly cynical. I'm pointing out the the calculations that Obama's camp are claiming the Republicans are making are pretty similar to the calculations that politicians routinely make. Therefore, I don't see it as unduly cynical or un-presidential to make this observation. You are quibbling about how they to enunciate this claim; I dislike the implicit cost-benefit analysis on the Republican side.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations? Presumably several who opposed military tribunals and called to close Guantanamo and overturn the PATRIOT Act, but then changed positions upon coming to power. That's fine; I don't have a problem with it. Partisan politics, opposition for opposition's sake.
How many Democrats opposed Bush's tactics so that the US would fail in its anti-terrorism efforts, because they thought that failure would bring them to power? Do you see how that accusation is different?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
SenojRetep, You are drawing a false equivalence for a lot of reasons but the really important one is the Democrats never united in opposition to those things and never came close to actually blocking any of them.
A lot of Obama's proposals have been extremely similar to those that Republicans backed, even proposed, only months before Obama was elected so the chances that every single republican in congress is opposing them for ideological reasons are unfathomably small. That means that there have to be at least some republicans in congress who think Obama's proposals would be good for the country in the short term but are opposing them out of party loyalty. And unlike the Democrats under Bush, it actually makes a difference.
If you know your stand against military tribunals is never going to be adopted, you aren't under the same obligation to fully consider the impact of that proposal that you would be if the proposal was on the floor for debate and you know your vote would make the difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations?
As a side note, my senator at the time was Russ Feingold. I'm proud to be able to say that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations? Presumably several who opposed military tribunals and called to close Guantanamo and overturn the PATRIOT Act, but then changed positions upon coming to power. That's fine; I don't have a problem with it. Partisan politics, opposition for opposition's sake.
How many Democrats opposed Bush's tactics so that the US would fail in its anti-terrorism efforts, because they thought that failure would bring them to power? Do you see how that accusation is different?
Not enough of them opposed President Bush's tactics whatever the reason.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I still don't understand the argument that I want to "award" the Republicans with the White House. I don't. What I want is for Congress to work. Regardless of who the President is. Obama has been a weak President and to me isn't showing the kind of tenacity and attitude to get Congress going. Clinton was able to do it, though he royally pissed off some of his Democratic colleagues.
Well, functionally-that is to say, the result of the reasoning you're applying here-what you want is for Congress to work for Republicans. Republicans obstruct the president to a degree unseen before in American politics. President largely fails to overcome the obstruction. Result: vote in a Republican president, so that Congress can work.
quote:Obama has been unable to do the same. The policital landscape is different, but not all that different. There were still filibusters and obstruction in the 90's, but somehow we were able to get stuff done. Clinton realized that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, and compromised. He also didn't cave. Republicans threatened a government shutdown, he called their bluff, and republicans suffered for it.
You act as though Obama-and Congressional Democrats-haven't offered to compromise. Particularly in the latest debacle, the debt ceiling issue, they didn't just compromise, they were the only ones to discuss compromise on the issues that were important to them. As for comparing the Republicans then and now, they're simply different animals. Now, not only was there Republican talk of not backing down, but if/when they didn't back down, the result would actually be good or at least not very bad at all (debt ceiling).
quote:Obama just doesn't have that. Instead of being firm and calling republicans bluff, he just cowers and whines, and ultimately gives them what they want.
I have to admit, I'm pretty skeptical that you would actually support the President standing up to Congressional Republicans, given that your response to the success of Republican 'bluffs' is to...elect a Republican to the White House.
quote:Now, that doesn't excuse the behavior of the Republicans. Some of the bills they have blocked were just silly. But if you want to know why republicans keep blocking legislation, the reason is simple: It works.
Well (and this sounds shot-y, but I'm not writing it in that spirit, just as an observation), judging by this conversation, it certainly does. Do their damndest to make Obama weak, stifling the efforts of government in time of war, recession, debt ceiling crisis, natural disaster...and ensure a Republican gets the office instead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: How many Democrats dinged Bush on civil liberties out of crass political motivations?
The democrats proved universally *unwilling* to jeopardize national security by holding up legislation after 9/11. And as for overturning the Patriot Act, there was a sound body of reasoning that argued that it was no longer necessary, and no longer appropriate by 2006, and further that the President had abused the powers it provided, and flouted the laws that had been put in place at his own urging.
That's not analogous to the debt ceiling crisis at all. The debt ceiling crisis had two possible outcomes- either the debt would rise, or the country would default on its debt. The Republicans used the disastrous threat of a default to extort onerous consessions from the majority party. They threatened to allow a disaster to occur if their demands were not met. They did this quite openly, and without seeming the least concerned for the consequences of their actions, to win political points. It's unconscionable, even if it is not exactly criminal.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rakeesh, I think you are looking at my statements like I am this hardcore right wing guy that wants republicans to take over the entire country. I know some of my statements in the past on this forum have probably influenced you to think about me that way.
I don't want that. Republicans have made me sick over the past couple of years. When I say I want Congress to work, I want the both sides of the aisle to work together in a more bi-partisan fashion and pass legislation. Congressional democrats have been willing to do this, but I would argue the President has not been as willing.
In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
This link is a good article on what happened in the 90's with Clinton. You would be surprised how much it mirrors the past few years.
quote:I don't want that. Republicans have made me sick over the past couple of years. When I say I want Congress to work, I want the both sides of the aisle to work together in a more bi-partisan fashion and pass legislation. Congressional democrats have been willing to do this, but I would argue the President has not been as willing.
In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
I'd say you have a fairly different view of the past few years than I do. The whole debt ceiling debacle wasn't that long ago, and Obama was perfectly willing to deal. Personally I think he should have called their bluff, but Republicans had a gun to the head of the US economy. Like Rakeesh and others say, you're basically calling to reward them for their behavior. Any reasonable political party would NOT have had a "we do it 100% my way or I crash the entire economy" bargaining position. That isn't a bargain. That's a ransom note.
It's not just convenient to blame the Republicans, in this instance I'd say it's spot on. What do you do when you want to fix the economy but the GOP not only acts like they don't want you do, but has declared their opposition to anything and everything you want to do? Obama bent over backwards in the first two years to make things bi-partisan, and he didn't even have to! He tried to be bi-partisan when they could have rammed things through Congress. After the GOP upswing in 2010, he again tried to work with him, and Congress ground to a screeching halt for a year. They've passed almost NO legislation since the GOP took over, and you're blaming Obama for that? Come on man, re-examine the last 10 months.
Higher taxes on the super rich are something overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Polls show that even a majority of the TEA PARTY are in favor of tax increases for the super rich.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
I'd love to hear something by a prominent Democratic politician saying something to the effect of, "Higher taxes on the rich are the solution to our economic woes." That said, I'm also curious if you stand by the claim that Obama simply went from blaming Bush for everything to blaming Congress.
Those two statements are, well, the kind of thing that lead me to conclude you're quite firmly partisan to the right, pretty hardcore.
As Lyrhawn has said, too, you are quite unhappy (according to you, and I believe you) with the way Republicans have conducted themselves in Congress. I don't think you're unaware of just *why* they've behaved in the ways you've objected to in Congress: to gain more seats, and the White House. But you've said that your vote will be...in direct support of that goal, in effect if not intent.
Do you see the disconnect there? "Republicans have behaved awfully in Congress," (to cripple any Democratic moves), "here's why I'm voting for Republicans for the WH and other elections." There's a, well, glaring contradiction there. It seems to me it is difficult to object to ultimatums and the like, and then vote to make it even more effective later.
I'm not saying that adds up to vote Democrat. I'm saying that objection and that response just don't fit together.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Rakeesh, I think you are looking at my statements like I am this hardcore right wing guy that wants republicans to take over the entire country.
Do you know why people still come to that conclusion about you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anyway, I'm watching Cain's time in the spotlight and the whole thing about the 999 tax plan. It's identical to the tax system in Sim City 4.
When are the republicans going to get tired of utterly terrible candidates?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wait... I thought the horrible candidates thing was like, some sort of game plan. You're saying it's not that deep? I just assumed it had to be. I mean, that and it's hard to find somebody smart to spout this sort of nonsense.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Anyway, I'm watching Cain's time in the spotlight and the whole thing about the 999 tax plan. It's identical to the tax system in Sim City 4.
When are the republicans going to get tired of utterly terrible candidates?
How does it work out in the game? I'm just curious, I've never played.
[ October 15, 2011, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: DDDaysh ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Samp - You know Cain has actually had to answer questions about that. Reporters have asked him if that's where he got the plan, and he'd denied it.
The CEO of Maxis is reportedly thrilled.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: How does it work out in the game? I'm just curious, I've never played.
It's the default tax system setting, 9% residential, 9% commercial, 9% industrial. Not a lot to get excited about, you usually don't have to touch it until your city gets much bigger.
There's more to fiddle with ordinance and other programs.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Basically the media is bored, and found a coincidence that they think will get attention, so they are highlighting that rather than the simplistic nature of the actual proposed plan.
Instead of saying "LOL, your tax plan is from a video game, did you copy it?", they should be saying "Your tax plan is similar to a video game's which is aimed at idiots with little interest in an effective tax structure. Are you, yourself, also an idiot?"
Well, not in so many words, but you get the idea.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well... I think it's at least *easier* to ask if he copied the plan from a video game. The implication is that he is an idiot- but the media doesn't really have the balls to just call him on having the stupidest idea that got nationwide play in recent weeks.
I just laugh every time a reporter *doesn't* follow up on the question of the effect on consumer spending on actual revenues under the plan- especially when the answer is ":long silence: UUUUMMMMMMM......"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Samp - You know Cain has actually had to answer questions about that. Reporters have asked him if that's where he got the plan, and he'd denied it.
The tax plan being identical to one from sim city isn't the issue. Well, at least not in terms of whether or not his 'economist' advisor cribbed it from a game. The issue is that it's his economic plan, and it's so terrible that I don't think anyone whose economic ideals are even slightly realistic are going to be defending it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course. But it's kind of funny.
Actually, Cain has refused to reveal any of his campaign advisors since telling the public who one of his economic advisors is. He claims the guy was savaged by the media, and the media just 'wants to know who his smart people are' so they can criticize. Part of me thinks rejecting that request is clever from a campaign perspective, but on the other hand, as a voter, isn't it our right to know who his smart people are, if he's not coming up with the ideas himself?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Part of me thinks rejecting that request is clever from a campaign perspective,
I don't know how I'm supposed to see it as very clever. It's obvious damage control mode by a completely boned candidate, hoping to grant himself some cover by retreating to a Palinesque 'the media is just out to get me' position in order to hope that he can keep this from being a rightfully run-ending issue.
This is why I ask when the GOP is going to get tired of being wowed by all these really terrible, vacuous, irredeemable candidates. We've already cycled through Palin, Trump, and Bachmann. If there had been any lessons learned, Cain would not be the newest frontrunner in the campaign. Apparently, however, they're not quite yet ready to evolve their primaries beyond the nutty circus phase. All they're really missing is a legacy appearance by perennial non-starter candidate Tom "nuke mecca" Tancredo to finish the 'do you see what we mean about the tea party' pentafecta.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah.
December could be really interesting if New Hampshire really moves up that early. You could see two or so candidates drop out immediately. Bachmann will hang on through Iowa to see how she does, then probably out. Huntsman will be out after New Hampshire without a strong showing. Both of them are burning through cash at an unsustainable rate. Perry and Romney, and I'd bet Cain now, have the war chests to hang on as long as necessary, but most everyone else will be out after the first three or four races.
I still think things could get interesting if this boils down to a two man race and it's Romney versus a more conservative (well, it will have to be). If Cain or Perry picks up all the rest of the electorate when the drop out, Romney still has something to worry about. But if they stubbornly hold on longer than they should, they'll split the vote enough.
It's only really clever, his rejection of their questions, when you consider that revealing campaign advisors is a pretty standard thing they have to go through.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Geraine,
quote:In the past year I have seen Obama stop blaming Bush for everything and start blaming Republicans in Congress. It is convenient to do so. We continue to hear the same speeches about how this is all republicans fault and that higher taxes on the wealthy are the solution to our economic woes (they aren't).
I'd love to hear something by a prominent Democratic politician saying something to the effect of, "Higher taxes on the rich are the solution to our economic woes." That said, I'm also curious if you stand by the claim that Obama simply went from blaming Bush for everything to blaming Congress.
Those two statements are, well, the kind of thing that lead me to conclude you're quite firmly partisan to the right, pretty hardcore.
As Lyrhawn has said, too, you are quite unhappy (according to you, and I believe you) with the way Republicans have conducted themselves in Congress. I don't think you're unaware of just *why* they've behaved in the ways you've objected to in Congress: to gain more seats, and the White House. But you've said that your vote will be...in direct support of that goal, in effect if not intent.
Do you see the disconnect there? "Republicans have behaved awfully in Congress," (to cripple any Democratic moves), "here's why I'm voting for Republicans for the WH and other elections." There's a, well, glaring contradiction there. It seems to me it is difficult to object to ultimatums and the like, and then vote to make it even more effective later.
I'm not saying that adds up to vote Democrat. I'm saying that objection and that response just don't fit together.
Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.
Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
This is politics as usual. Republicans and democrats both use the same tired old arguments every election cycle. Each side throws out claims of obstruction, class warfare, etc. The problem is this doesn't help. Candidates may think it helps their campaigns, but in reality it doesn't.
Gore had a lead until he started running on a class warfare platform, and saw his lead evaporate. Kerry fell even further in the polls when he started doing it. In contrast, Clinton didn't play that game. Rather, he got behind Welfare Reform, a balanced budget, and government spending cuts. As a result he absolutely creamed Dole.
Obama has kind of backed himself into a corner. The economy is not doing well and he knows it. He is trying to get votes by playing class warfare, and I think it is a bad move. Look at his 2008 campaign vs. this one. In 2008 he was able to bring lower and upper class voters together with a promise of "Hope and Change." Since then he has pretty much alienated the upper class. He will hold on to the lower class voters without a doubt, but I think his support among middle and upper class voters is starting to dwindle.
Long story short; find me a democratic presidential candidate that can end the congressional gridlock, and I'll vote for them. Otherwise I'll be voting for the person that I think can do a better job than Obama. If that person is a republican, then so be it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Gore had a lead until he started running on a class warfare platform...
Out of interest, which of Gore's proposed policies would you characterize in this way?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.
Well I'm glad you acknowledge (though I could be misreading, you'll correct me if I'm mistaken?) that Republicans don't deserve the White House this election. But for the sake of argument, you may very well be right. Romney may be the man to unite and move forward, etc. But what happens next time the Republicans are a minority party in Congress and out of the White House? Are they just supposed to forget how brilliantly effective (should Romney or another Republican contender) this technique was? Signing on with this method of politics-and that's precisely what voting for a Republican this term is, in effect if not in intent-guarantees this kind of obstructionist deadlock indefinitely whenever conditions are right.
quote:Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
Wait a minute. The Patriot Act? Democrats obstructed on that? And that's just one easy example. Federal judge confirmations? That kind of roadblocking happens all the time, and it's nothing special (though it has ratcheted up lately)-so to suggest Democrats are especially obstructionist there is pretty strange. As for the rest, much of the objection was actually ideological-that is, they didn't support it was considered ineffective and harmful.
The same cannot be honestly said of Republican obstruction in Congress today, unless we're buying entirely into their line of reasoning which is apparently, "Democrats are so bad for the country that it's better we make sure they get as little done as possible, period, than anything. Compromise is to be minimized, not sought out."
quote:This is politics as usual. Republicans and democrats both use the same tired old arguments every election cycle. Each side throws out claims of obstruction, class warfare, etc. The problem is this doesn't help. Candidates may think it helps their campaigns, but in reality it doesn't.
Oh. I didn't realize we were on a 'they're the same' track.
quote:Long story short; find me a democratic presidential candidate that can end the congressional gridlock, and I'll vote for them. Otherwise I'll be voting for the person that I think can do a better job than Obama. If that person is a republican, then so be it.
Fair enough. But then don't say that you object to Republican obstructionist behavior in Congress (not long ago, you were semi-acknowledging it. Now you appear to have backed off). Because you don't, not anymore than I'd be a vegetarian if I ate beef, pork, and chicken...only for family meals a few times a week.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Gore ran a class warfare platform???? In what universe??
You are forgetting that Gore had a lead in the popular vote on the day of the election. Gore lost the election because of failure to have his campaign manager and brother counting and certifying the Florida votes and not because his platform was unpopular with the majority of the American public.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.
I'm confused Geraine. You seem to accept the proposition that Congressional republicans are being obstructionist in order to win the Presidency. If that's true, then it must follow that they wouldn't be cooperating with any one but a republican. Your argument then basically boils down to "I'd support a democratic candidate if that candidate was a republican".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?
Also, are you trying to say that the two parties have largely been the same when it comes to obstructionism, that there's no notable difference between the two in that sense?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even pointing out the way the disparity of wealth in this country is so extremely skewed upwards in ways that haven't been true for generations is considered 'class warfare'.
Even suggesting that, hey, somehow the rich are continuing to get enormously richer in this country despite our 'extremely high' taxes is class warfare. Pointing out, "Hey, maybe we're being a bit too friendly to the top half of the top percent at the expense of other citizens," even if that is not (as you suggested, Geraine) the 'solution' offered by Democrats is 'class warfare'.
What class warfare in this country is, is something very like socialism: a bogeyman conjured up by the GOP and others, scaring people into voting in support of the interest of a group they will (like just about all of us) never be a part of.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well I'm glad you acknowledge (though I could be misreading, you'll correct me if I'm mistaken?) that Republicans don't deserve the White House this election. But for the sake of argument, you may very well be right. Romney may be the man to unite and move forward, etc. But what happens next time the Republicans are a minority party in Congress and out of the White House? Are they just supposed to forget how brilliantly effective (should Romney or another Republican contender) this technique was? Signing on with this method of politics-and that's precisely what voting for a Republican this term is, in effect if not in intent-guarantees this kind of obstructionist deadlock indefinitely whenever conditions are right.
Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, what if Democrats recognized how brilliantly effective these tactics were and starting acting the same way. Would that be the kind of representative democracy any of us want?
If we want a society where people from different perspectives are able to work together to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems, then we have to stop rewarding people who aren't willing to work cooperatively. We have to stop accepting politicians who treat the opposition as an enemy to be defeated at any cost rather than fellow citizens who are also want what's best for the nation. If we think there is value in accommodating each others needs and desires, then we have to stop rewarding political parties who want the winner to take the spoils.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Class Warfare?
Republicans in Florida led a campaign requiring all people who get welfare must take Drug tests.
Why?
Because the wealthy want us to believe that anyone in the class of poor, who require welfare to live, are drug addicts or worse.
That is class warfare.
The fact that this resulted in less than 3% of the people testing positive has not deterred them from their attacks.
Every back yard bully, serial killer, and sadist say the same things to and of their victims. "They deserved it."
Every petty thief, con-man, and embezzler says the same thing about the stuff they stole. "We deserved it."
That is what I hear instead of Christian compassion, spewing from the right these days. The wealthy say "We deserve it." and the poverty of others--"They deserve it."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Some how its never "class warfare" when the wealthy promote policies that benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of society. Its only "class warfare" when the lower classes fight back.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
Just want to interrupt the piling on to say that I think this is a pretty valid point. If memory serves, I remember how filibuster-happy the democrats in Congress were during the Bush years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Again, I am not looking to give Republicans the Presidency because they deserve it. I'm looking for someone that I think would be able to unite the country and move forward. If there was a democrat that challenged Obama in a primary and I thought that person would be able to work well with congress, I'd consider voting for them.
Geraine, again you get that those two candidate would "move forward" in different directions, right? How are you going to "move forward" and unite the country when the country disagrees on which way forward is? In terms of forward movement, stopping is better than movement if movement is backwards.
Work well with Congress to do what?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?
Sadly, only in the lovely fantasy world in my head. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Foolish Took, if you look at the numbers you will find that Republican's have been significantly more Filibuster and Judge-blocking than the Democrats were. Some blame the timidness of the Democrats for this, but it is not now a tit-for-tat. Its a, "hey this works so we'll be stubborn and get what we want" tactic.
Again, its a "Blame the victim" excuse, a "they did it before so I get to do it now" excuse, an excuse that my son grew out of before turning 8.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Filibustering has been a state of affairs both parties have eagerly embraced as of late. I don't think it really matter which party has done it more, there's no reason to expect the Democrats won't do it just as much if the Republicans gain the presidency, and maintain control of the House.
Until that option is taking away, it's going to be used. The next time raising the federal debt ceiling comes up, expect that to come about with quite a few hitches every time as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:Goodness, go back a few years and you can see people complaining that the democrats were the obstructionists. Social Security Reform, the energy bill, Parental Notification Act, The Patriot Act, the Border Security Bill, Class Action Lawsuit reform, federal judge confirmations, and more were all blocked by democrats. It is a pot calling the kettle black kind of situations.
Just want to interrupt the piling on to say that I think this is a pretty valid point. If memory serves, I remember how filibuster-happy the democrats in Congress were during the Bush years.
Well to be fair, Foolish Took isn't exactly remembering wrong. Republicans did do an awful lot of complaining about filibustering and general obstructionism by the democrats under GW Bush. But you can't argue with the numbers and they show that the dems didn't hold a candle to what the Republicans are doing now. This is just one more aspect of the depth of hypocrisy in the Republican party.
Furthermore, in the months following 911 the democrats pretty much rubber stamped everything the republicans proposed, including a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with national security. During those day, the Bush did a lot of grand standing about the importance of uniting in the face of emergency and democrats by and large did that.
The thing is, the economic crisis that Obama inherited from Bush was in many ways at least as serious a national crisis as 911 and though Obama made calls for unity in responding to that crisis, the republicans in congress, right down to the last person, refused to work with the President and congressional democrats to address the issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm surprised to see Rubin post an editorial like this one. I don't think Mr. Cain has necessarily done anything wrong, he could have easily been in a position where he couldn't do anything. But he definitely needs to clarify this. If Mitt Romney's days at Bain Capital speak to his experience with how to manage the economy, then Cain's time at Aquila is just as important.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:don't think Mr. Cain has necessarily done anything wrong, he could have easily been in a position where he couldn't do anything.
It's highly unlikely that he was in a position where he couldn't do anything. Even if he was not in a position to change the company policy, he could have expressed concerns about high risk investments in writing or made a written protest of misleading literature sent out by the company or taken steps to inform employs about what was being done with their pension plan. He was responsible for oversight so at a bare minimum, he was negligent in that duty. For that reason, I think its highly unlike that he or his team will make a more honest attempt to address the issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: I lean towards saying he bears some of the fault, but I'll still give the man a chance to explain himself.
I don't think he will be able to dodge this issue, the Romney campaign would be fools not to keep bringing it up now that ABC has run with it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what world was the Democratic Party obstructing the Patriot Act?
Sadly, only in the lovely fantasy world in my head.
Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush accused Senate Democrats of ``inexcusable'' obstruction for failing to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act in its current form, while a group of senators sought to increase pressure for a three-month extension.
The senators said at a news conference in Washington that 52 Senate members, including eight Republicans, signed a letter urging a three-month extension so negotiators can fashion a renewed version of the anti-terrorism law. Without renewal or extension of the law, key provisions would expire at the end of the year.
``The terrorist threat is not going to expire at the end of this year,'' Bush told reporters. ``The expiration of this law will endanger America and will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers.''
Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee had previously rejected a proposal by Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, for a three-month extension of the law while congressional leaders seek a compromise.
Opponents said the version of the bill proposed by Republican congressional wouldn't protect Americans' civil liberties. A Democratic-led filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome, last week blocked Senate passage of the measure.
``This obstruction is inexcusable,'' Bush said today.
History repeats itself, the only difference is who is in control. This happened during Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and almost every other president.
Blackblade, I do agree with you that the filibuster rules need to change.
Kmboots I really don't think that we are so different. I know that opinions on which way to move forward differ, but I sincerely think our goals are the same. I think that enables us to work together to get to those goals. Right now it just seems that there are a lot of people that don't want that. There is a senate race here in Nevada next year, and to be honest I am considering voting for Shelly Berkley over Dean Heller, simply because in the past she has been more willing to work with republicans.
And I truly mean what I said. If there was a democratic primary and somebody else ran against Obama, I would compare them to the rest of the candidates, and would consider voting for them.
Rakeesh, if it makes you feel better, I promise that I will scrutinize the person that receives the republican nomination and determine if I think he would do a better job than Obama. If I think Obama would better serve the American people, I will vote for him. Right off the top of my head, if Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, or Perry get the nomination, I'll vote Obama without hesitation. I will admit I like Paul and Romney. The others I do not know a whole lot about and admittedly need to research more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:History repeats itself, the only difference is who is in control.
Do you recognize no differences in degree?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Differences in degree are inconvenient. Fact one and fact two are equal. Very egalitarian.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just curious about something here, Rakeesh. I may be misreading you, so please bear in mind I am not trying to misrepresent you or anything like that. I am excising most of the other stuff for clarity, not to twist your words, so let me know if you feel I have done that somehow.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...hey, somehow the rich are continuing to get enormously richer in this country despite our 'extremely high' taxes...
Do you think that the fact that the rich are continuing to get enormously rich is, taken by itself, a bad thing? If so, why? If not, is it neutral? Good?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ..."Hey, maybe we're being a bit too friendly to the top half of the top percent at the expense of other citizens,"...
When you say "being too friendly" do you mean we are doing that by stacking the deck unfairly in favor of rich people, or do you mean by not stacking it heavy enough in someone else's favor? Why, in either case? If the answer is hidden option C, I'm curious what was meant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Do you think that the fact that the rich are continuing to get enormously rich...
I think it is problematic that the rich continue to arrogate to themselves a larger and larger portion of our shared pie, at a rate that outpaces the growth of the overall pie; everyone else gets smaller pieces, and theirs only grows. This is, I think, a problem that becomes increasingly severe the longer it is unaddressed.
quote:When you say "being too friendly" do you mean we are doing that by stacking the deck unfairly in favor of rich people...
The deck is absolutely stacked in favor of rich people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The deck is absolutely stacked in favor of rich people.
This!! And if you doubt that, you are pretty seriously deluded.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom & Rabbit: At the risk of sounding snarky, I'm fairly confident I could have predicted your answers here. This really isn't meant as a slight, just an observation. To be honest, I'm not terribly interested in turning this into a debate on fundamental principles.
I am, however, curious where Rakeesh falls on these questions, because I genuinely don't feel that I can reliably guess his answer.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How can you possibly not think that the deck is stacked in favor of the rich?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Obviously, I'm deluded. *Sigh*
I suppose that it could also depend on what one means by "the deck is stacked." Do you simply mean that rich people have significant advantages that poorer people lack? I'll certainly agree to that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not just advantages, they've always had advantages, but advantages that extend to a degree that is far beyond what has traditionally been the case.
There's nothing within the normal spectrum of events that leads me to believe this trend of the rich getting richer, and everybody else going nowhere while expenses continue to rise will stop. If that is the case, what outcome is left to us? The awful prospect of social upheaval, administered with all the delicate care of an elephant having a seizure in a china shop.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Tom & Rabbit: At the risk of sounding snarky, I'm fairly confident I could have predicted your answers here.
You are consistent, and therefore you do not interest me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right. Orincoro, don't you usually object when people put words in your mouth? Couldn't you do me the basic courtesy of not inflicting on me what you would hate to be inflicted on you? I know I'm an evil conservative/libertarian but I'm trying pretty hard to discuss in good faith here and not just snipe.
I was specifically asking Rakeesh to clarify something because I honestly don't understand what his opinion of it is, and I know he tends to be a bit more of a moderate/centrist so I was genuinely curious.
Tom's not a moderate. I don't think he'll be insulted by my asserting that... at least I hope not, since I don't find it insulting myself. I'm not a moderate. But as I said, I wasn't really interested in having the debate that will inevitably occur if Tom and I discuss that. I don't think it would be very productive and I just don't have the energy right now. I was just curious what exactly Rakeesh meant, and where he falls on this issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, I typically object when people misread me to the point of not demonstrating even a superficial understanding of what I am saying. I put words in people's mouths all the time- people often complain about it. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.
quote: I know I'm an evil conservative/libertarian but I'm trying pretty hard to discuss in good faith here and not just snipe.
Oh, I see. You're a victim. So, you lost already. Now we should take pity on you. Your ideas and your advocacy for those ideas are not strong enough- *cannot* be strong enough to justify you even sharing them. How can we have a good faith conversation if this passive aggression is your actual starting point? "A jeez, these guys are mean and they'll never believe I'm being honest and not just a hack conservative know-nothing..." This conversation is bound to turn out well.
And you wonder why you don't get taken seriously- maybe you shouldn't spend so much of your time worrying about how you are perceived.
I don't find conservatives to be evil. I find the conservative movement to be, primarily, stupid. I am very consistent on that point. Stupidity is the prime mover in my conception of conservatives.
quote: Tom's not a moderate.
Well, you have never had a serious conversation with an extreme liberal, if that's what you think. Of course, Tom is pretty typical for an American liberal... which is to say "moderate."
There are one or two "extreme" liberals on this board. You notice they get the piss taken as much or often more than you do.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I wasn't asking for pity, man. I was just asking for you to not be such a jerk. My mistake.
It's amazing to me that you view a desire to keep the conversation civil as some sort of weakness or passive aggression.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There are one or two "extreme" liberals on this board.
Oh oh! Am I one?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
D_F, No, I view *your mode of expressing that desire,* and not the desire itself, per se, as a sign of weakness and passive aggression. Your approach indicates to me that you don't want civility as much as you want to be treated nicely, and so will pretend to treat others nicely with false self-deprecation, "I don't mean to sound snarky, but here's a little snark I want to display..."
quote: I was just asking for you to not be such a jerk. My mistake.
Your mistake indeed. Since you didn't ask that- you merely made the implication... passive aggressively .
But I digest. Yes, I think it's lame to shut people down with some remark about how predictable they are, couched in a semi-respectful backhanded "just saying," line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:There are one or two "extreme" liberals on this board.
Oh oh! Am I one?
I wouldn't say so... would you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: D_F, No, I view *your mode of expressing that desire,* and not the desire itself, per se, as a sign of weakness and passive aggression. Your approach indicates to me that you don't want civility as much as you want to be treated nicely, and so will pretend to treat others nicely with false self-deprecation, "I don't mean to sound snarky, but here's a little snark I want to display..."
I'm perfectly happy not being civil, actually. When the context calls for it. But my impression of Hatrack as a community is that civility and niceness is valued fairly highly. Just trying to play ball. You got me, though. Despite my efforts, I certainly was a bit snarky.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: I was just asking for you to not be such a jerk. My mistake.
Your mistake indeed. Since you didn't ask that- you merely made the implication... passive aggressively
Did I now? Too difficult to scroll up a few inches, or what? I asked you to do me "basic courtesy," that seems pretty explicit. My error wasn't in being passive aggressive, it was in mistakenly thinking you were the one who dislikes it when people misrepresent him.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But I digest. Yes, I think it's lame to shut people down with some remark about how predictable they are, couched in a semi-respectful backhanded "just saying," line.
That's actually fair. It was lame. I still think I had legitimate reasons, but you're right, what I said was very "Just saying!" Why couldn't you have just said this to begin with, instead of being such a prick? Anyway, sorry Tom, Rabbit.
PS: I hope your digesting goes well. I would recommend help but most of the results look sort of woo-woo "alternative"-y, so... good luck.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I am a "firm" believer in dried psillium seed husks. Pass on the word- and we can really get this party... moving.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'd love to hear more, let me just pull up a stool.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
FoolishTook, others have addressed this, but your memories notwithstanding, Republicans are *dramatically* more obstructionist now than Democrats have ever been in the past.
----
Geraine, you shifted the discussion. The *reauthorization* of the PA was a very different animal than the initial PA. Even the rejection of Democratic 'obstructionism' is worded strangely. Fundamental (valid, in retrospect) concerns about civil liberties are 'inexcusable'. Today, Republican leaders have admitted to obstructing anything the Democrats would like to achieve as much as they can, strictly to weaken them in the next election. That's a *very* different thing than a party having fundamental concerns about the rights of American citizens (and, further evidence of the glaring contradiction in the GOP) the *power of government*. That is supposed to be what *Republicans* are concerned about, while Democrats want to expand the government at the expense of the people to protect them.
As for your vote, I was never in doubt that you'd vote for who you felt would do the best job. I was pretty sure but not certain that list would include some of the names you mentioned as off. But, and this isn't a zinger just an observation, I am *also* not surprised to learn that you don't really feel Republicans are behaving in an unusually bad way. I'm not surprised because it explains your unconcern with rewarding Congressional Republicans-why shouldn't they be rewarded? When it comes to bad stuff, they're the same.
-----
Dan, I feel that when the rich in a population continue to get *proportionally* richer, and the rest either stagnate or get poorer (and really, it's 'get poorer', the supply being limited and the subject relative), then yes, it's a bad thing. To an extent it's unavoidable. Wealth confers advantages. Wealth *at birth* confers *enormous* advantages, as striking as does poverty. Those advantages will, naturally, seek to perpetuate themselves. That's why harmful monopolies form if we just leave the system alone. That's why aristocracies are bound to exist, under whatever name, if permitted to grow unrestricted.
The deck cannot be stacked fairly *at all*. It's a contradiction in terms. But I'll tell you what's real unfair stacking: being born in a high crime neighborhood with failure factory schools where drug dealers work corners and jobs with healthcare are few and far between, because employers keep workers right below full time. That kid, if he wants to be President, or a CEO, he's gotta be a goddamned hero of effort. The kid born with wealth, healthcare, connections, guaranteed education, freedom from the fear of crime, how hard does *he* have to work to achieve the same result?
In America, an individual can be what he wants to be. Depending on the circumstances of his birth, though, he has to want it some, a bit, or want it like a forest fire. That's the kind of thing I mean by unfair stacking. 'Land of opportunity' is a *goal*, not an entire reality.
As for how I mean that beyond 'the rich have advantages the poor don't, here's a simple example: the rich get vastly more benefit from the social structure overall than the poor. If your kids live in an affluent neighborhood, the cops will be working, effectively in many cases, to ensure they never even *see* a violent teenager in their school. If they live in a poor neighborhood that's home to a government run failure factory school, the cops may be so overworked they must settle for being satisfied the violent teenagers haven't shot anyone that month. Or week.
I suspect I'm actually much closer, politically, to 'extreme liberal' than you think, Dan. I don't tend to read nearly as much malice or stupidity into conservatives as, say, Orincoro or Tom do, though. But I don't consider myself a moderate.
(And, sheesh Orincoro, must you be so consistently hostile? I get just as frustrated as you do by the type of behavior you're describing, but you seem to trigger and see that behavior *much* sooner than I do. I think it's nonsense, a cynical political ploy, these notions that there's equivalence in bad behavior between the parties, as well as the insistence that because an individual *can* achieve whatever he likes, theoretically, the job is done. But I don't see how you mean to even discuss the topic, much less change someone's mind or learn what they think, if you arrive on the scene already knowing what they think.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I suspect I'm actually much closer, politically, to 'extreme liberal' than you think, Dan. I don't tend to read nearly as much malice or stupidity into conservatives as, say, Orincoro or Tom do, though. But I don't consider myself a moderate.
That's fair, my assumptions must have been off-base. And I really appreciate your answers to my questions. That's exactly what I was looking for.
... I feel like it's worth mentioning, that I never called anyone "extreme." I've seen too many people in real life that put you or Lyrhawn or Orincoro or Samp or Tom to utter shame on the extremity meter. All I said was that I doubt Tom would identify himself as a centrist/moderate any more than I would (or, apparently, any more than you would!) And as I said before, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me when someone who is obviously a staunch liberal/conservative tries to self-identify as a moderate. I think it's an unsubtle attempt to radicalize anyone on the other side of the field from them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:There are one or two "extreme" liberals on this board.
Oh oh! Am I one?
I wouldn't say so... would you?
I think when you balance my political beliefs, I tend to come out fairly moderate. But I think a lot of my liberal views are very liberal...they're just moderated by a few conservative views I hold that attenuate my liberal tendencies.
It's a tricky, if somewhat useless distinction I suppose.
Edit to add: After reading Dan's post on self-identified moderates, I think you have to ask how people who don't fall 100% of the time on one side can label themselves. I'm a social liberal on 99% of the issues, except for abortion, which I have a somewhat complicated view on. And I'm both liberal and conservative on a few other issues as well.
On the whole, I lean way to the left. But do I call myself a liberal just like that, when I believe a few things that would probably get me kicked out of most diehard liberal coffee klatsches? Or do I average them all together and call myself a sort of left leaning moderate? This is why I hate labeling really, because simplicity suggests one answer, but the assumptions that come with it demand a more nuanced approach.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:There are one or two "extreme" liberals on this board.
Oh oh! Am I one?
I wouldn't say so... would you?
I think when you balance my political beliefs, I tend to come out fairly moderate. But I think a lot of my liberal views are very liberal...they're just moderated by a few conservative views I hold that attenuate my liberal tendencies.
It's a tricky, if somewhat useless distinction I suppose.
Heh, if I'm understanding you right, by that criteria I'm totally moderate. Of course, so is every libertarian. And, honestly, if there's one party I don't think should ever get to call themselves "moderate," its the libertarians.
Edit after Lyrhawn's Edit: Good point. Even calling myself a libertarian is really misleading, as I diverge on some significant areas.
Labels are sticky, and I mean that in multiple ways.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Labels are sticky, and I mean that in multiple ways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You got me, though. Despite my efforts, I certainly was a bit snarky.
Depending on who you're talking to, I've come to sense you can't really help yourself!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:History repeats itself, the only difference is who is in control.
Do you recognize no differences in degree?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Obviously, I'm deluded. *Sigh*
I suppose that it could also depend on what one means by "the deck is stacked." Do you simply mean that rich people have significant advantages that poorer people lack? I'll certainly agree to that.
What I mean by the deck being stack is that there is a positive feed back loop. If you are poor, you can only make money by working. If you are rich, you can also make money by investing that money, and not just in the stock market. You can invest that money to get a prestigious education. You can invest that money to buy tools and equipment you can use to make more money. You can spend that money at clubs and other places that buy you friends in influencial places. You can invest that money by campaigning for policies that will benefit you. You can invest that money paying people to do mundane life chores so you have more time for pursuits with a bigger pay back. If you have excess, you can make high risk investments with the potential for a big pay out without fearing that you'll be homeless and destitute if you loose. I can't imagine you disagree with any of those things. They aren't controversial.
But what that all boils down to is that the more money you have, the easier it becomes to make more money and gain more power and influence. Its an exponential process that is fundamentally unstable. Once you understand the math, the idea that the free market could produce a stable self regulating system is flat out ridiculous. Markets are fundamentally unstable without external regulation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suppose that it could also depend on what one means by "the deck is stacked." Do you simply mean that rich people have significant advantages that poorer people lack? I'll certainly agree to that.
I mean that criminal law is written to favor the rich and ignore the crimes the rich most often commit, the tax code is written to favor the mechanisms by which the rich expand their wealth, our culture forgives behavior in the rich which it will not tolerate from anyone else, and our society is one in which almost all figures of influence are either rich themselves or forced to grovel to the rich for their approval and funding.
quote:Tom's not a moderate. I don't think he'll be insulted by my asserting that...
I am very much a moderate, actually. I am, however, anti-authoritarian, which makes me appear to strongly oppose both the corporate wing of the Republican Party and, well, the rest of the Republican Party. But being opposed to pretty much every part of the Republican Party doesn't necessarily make me a liberal. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me when someone who is obviously a staunch liberal/conservative tries to self-identify as a moderate. I think it's an unsubtle attempt to radicalize anyone on the other side of the field from them.
Well, in Canada the Liberal party *is* either centre right or centre left depending on leader. There are two parties on the left with parliamentary seats, Green and NDP, the latter of which is the current opposition and one party on the right, the governing Conservatives.
So, it's all a matter of perspective. (If you toss in Chinese political beliefs, it gets even weirder)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am to the left of most of the folks here and, compared to most of the developed world, I am not very far left at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Compared to the rest of the developed world, I'm probably dead in the middle, possibly even right. Most left-wingers in america are first uncomfortable with the idea ('me? right wing? but?') but then you just have to point out what that means in terms of how comparatively out there the American right-wing is, and how artificial our political debates seem to the rest of the modern world.
Most people who live out of the U.S. in developed nations tend to see it this way: our left wing is comparable to their right wing (liberals), our right wing is ... well, when they put it frankly, most just say that they're glad it's not something analogous to any party in their nation outside of the absolute fringe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You got me, though. Despite my efforts, I certainly was a bit snarky.
Depending on who you're talking to, I've come to sense you can't really help yourself!
Hello pot, my name is kettle! (I am secretly suspicious, since it seems so very strange that *you* would criticize someone for being constantly snarky, that you were joking.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's preposterous. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Outlandish, even.
Tom: Alright, then I double apologize, once for the snark, and once for the assumption.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean that criminal law is written to favor the rich and ignore the crimes the rich most often commit, the tax code is written to favor the mechanisms by which the rich expand their wealth, our culture forgives behavior in the rich which it will not tolerate from anyone else, and our society is one in which almost all figures of influence are either rich themselves or forced to grovel to the rich for their approval and funding.
Which reminds me of this highly appropriate Calypso. . In case you can't catch the lyrics, you can read them here. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For another example as to the deck stacking question, Dan: if you're an accessory to a bank robbery gone bad which ends in a murder, you're looking at decades in jail or perhaps sometimes even the death penalty.
If you ruin the finances of tens of thousands of lives, you're likely looking at less prison time in a less awful prison, always assuming you're caught in the first place. Stealing: it's better to do it when you're rich. Not just because you'll have (much) better legal representation, but because the penalties will be less.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Frankly, it annoys the hell out of me when someone who is obviously a staunch liberal/conservative tries to self-identify as a moderate. I think it's an unsubtle attempt to radicalize anyone on the other side of the field from them.
If its any consolation I self identify as Far Left.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I self identify as "slightly to the left of Karl Marx" so its kind of shocking to me when I'm in Europe and I find myself aligned with moderates.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For another example as to the deck stacking question, Dan: if you're an accessory to a bank robbery gone bad which ends in a murder, you're looking at decades in jail or perhaps sometimes even the death penalty.
If you ruin the finances of tens of thousands of lives, you're likely looking at less prison time in a less awful prison, always assuming you're caught in the first place. Stealing: it's better to do it when you're rich. Not just because you'll have (much) better legal representation, but because the penalties will be less.
Not to mention better lawyers and the ability to make bail. The wealthy have more access to justice. Or the clout to avoid it. (Rod Blagojevich is still not in jail.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure. Some of that is simply unavoidable, though: the wealthy will have more access to services and privileges than people who aren't wealthy. That's simply a given, and it always will be probably forever, unless there's some fundamental change-so deep it's not really imaginable-in humanity.
But my point was that, aside from better legal counsel, bail, etc., that even if the book were thrown at someone and it hit `em, if you're rich and steal millions from thousands, you're likely to face an equal or lesser penalty-and I mean this in the sense of actual laws in place, not just lawyer's tricks-than if you're poor and steal thousands from a couple.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The wealthy also have a greater say in what the laws are.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, that's a great example of a way that the deck is legitimately stacked in favor of rich people, and I agree that it shouldn't be that way. Realistically, wealthy people have access to more resources, so they have an advantage there and I'm not willing to say I think simply having better resources is an injustice we need to correct. Resources come in many shapes and sizes beyond just wealth.
But you're absolutely right that the penalties for crimes are all over the map, and skewed against crimes more likely to be committed by the poor. (As an aside, I think people are assuming I don't think the deck is stacked against poor people, and I'm not really saying that. I actually really liked what you said about a person's background vs. how much they have to want to achieve something. I think that was very well put)
Tom: How do you reconcile being anti-authoritarian with the authoritarian nature of government? Unless I'm once again making assumptions... For the purposes of the above question I am assuming that you support government force to reign in the wealthy and help the poor. If I'm off base, let me know.
Also, re: political labels, Samp I think saying that "I'm a moderate in Europe therefore I'm a moderate" is sort of disingenuous. I mean, I'm a classical liberal in the tradition of Mises and Popper. Yet in today's climate, where I live, I'm undeniably a "conservative." I think the primary function of these labels is as shorthand for the people around us, so as long as you're communicating with mostly Americans, seems like it makes sense to use the labels as they are commonly understood in America. No?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Also, re: political labels, Samp I think saying that "I'm a moderate in Europe therefore I'm a moderate" is sort of disingenuous.
I said that compared to the rest of the developed world I am dead in the middle. This is an expressly international observation independent of why I would consider myself a moderate in american politics specifically, and not an argument that 'therefore I'm a moderate.'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, No. I think that Americans in general need to be reminded of the context in which they are considered liberal or conservative. We live in a fairly conservative bubble and it behooves us to be aware of that.
[ October 18, 2011, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do you reconcile being anti-authoritarian with the authoritarian nature of government?
As long as the little people are empowered through participatory democracy, I don't think this is as much of a problem. That's why it's so important to make sure that we aren't just propping up oligarchs. Right now, someone can trade money for influence, and we haven't as a society come up with good ways to prevent this that don't infringe on their freedom to spend their money they way they want, or to engage in speech they consider important. We've drawn some arbitrary lines in the past -- "you can pay THIS much money to engage in this specific sort of speech, but no more" -- but I don't think anyone would argue that these lines made much sense or resolved the problem; the Supreme Court, noting the logical inconsistency, removed the lines a little while ago, and we're discovering that, yes, they were preventing some problems. So I think we need, as a society, to figure out which freedoms we're willing to impinge upon -- and whose -- in order to maximize the total liberty of our community. It's all well and good to stand on principle, but we'd all still think badly of a pacifist who merely watched while someone strangled a child an arm's length away.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... as long as you're communicating with mostly Americans, seems like it makes sense to use the labels as they are commonly understood in America. No?
Not necessarily. For example, one doesn't necessarily switch to imperial units from metric units when talking to Americans for example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, that's a great example of a way that the deck is legitimately stacked in favor of rich people, and I agree that it shouldn't be that way. Realistically, wealthy people have access to more resources, so they have an advantage there and I'm not willing to say I think simply having better resources is an injustice we need to correct. Resources come in many shapes and sizes beyond just wealth.
Nor am I. But, for example, equal amounts of money being stolen and then being punished differently? That's an injustice. Then comes the question of how just is the justice system if the poor are disadvantaged from the get-go? (This is a given, in fact-the poor are disadvantaged from the get-go. The question is what to do about it.)
quote:But you're absolutely right that the penalties for crimes are all over the map, and skewed against crimes more likely to be committed by the poor. (As an aside, I think people are assuming I don't think the deck is stacked against poor people, and I'm not really saying that. I actually really liked what you said about a person's background vs. how much they have to want to achieve something. I think that was very well put)
Thank you. I didn't think you were saying the deck wasn't stacked, but I wasn't sure. As for penalties, it's not really that they're all over the map. It's that there's multiple maps covering the same (supposedly) landscape. It's like a contour map or something. And again, that's just for crime-doesn't even touch on other things.
quote:Tom: How do you reconcile being anti-authoritarian with the authoritarian nature of government? Unless I'm once again making assumptions... For the purposes of the above question I am assuming that you support government force to reign in the wealthy and help the poor. If I'm off base, let me know.
Well, so do you-support government force to reign in the wealthy and help the poor (be less poor in the long-run). Everyone supports that, even the most reactionary of Tea Partiers. To an extent. These notions that're often heard of, that conservatives are 'against big government' or 'don't like to use government authority as force', etc., are simply bull@#it. I don't say it's intentional BS, but the fact remains that everyone supports using the government as a forceful tool and that use is only outrageous when the force is applied in opposing directions. Another of those little contradictions I was talking about among conservatives.
Basically, unless the wealthy are 'reigned in', they will over time inevitably get even more wealthy and in a society of limited resources that means that other people will get poorer-a lot of people. I don't think anyone can really argue that's incorrect-something must be done. The question is what, of course.
And as for the notion of 'reigning in' the wealthy...wealth is never, ever entirely self-generated in a human society. Hell, you can't be wealthy as an individual-you're only wealthy as a member of a civilization. Hermits aren't wealthy-they might have their necessities fully and tastily covered, but that's not the same thing. As a society, we give and protect the opportunity for people to make it big. Really big. They didn't do it on their own, and I don't think their obligation ends when they pay the minimum possible to maintain the infrastructure. Everybody else who doesn't make it big also pays to maintain the infrastructure, which has whether through circumstances of birth, personal success, or both aided the one who made it big more than everyone else. From these people, more is required because more has been gained.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.
Sadly, the good Bishop's successor was not a worthy replacement. Not fit to walk in his footsteps.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I learned the quote from Civilization IV.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*sigh*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What do you have against Tangential learning? Nearly half of my knowledge from Roman History came from Caesar III.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I learned the quote from Civilization IV.
Of course you did.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When it's a source of primary learning (or at least primary talking about learning), it can be a bit frustrating.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right now in the states video games might provide more substantive learning (on some topics) than actual schools.
For example Fox News threw a hissy fit over that game which put you in control of nations to avert global crises.
There's a huge wealth of data and information from games that won't be touched during a typical education.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I learned the quote from Civilization IV.
Of course you did.
Because its socialist
Gasp.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And you're well-informed about education in the United States...how, exactly? I mean, geeze, your source in support of your idea is a webcomic, Blayne. If you're gonna talk, cowboy up and use something that's a little less like direct pandering!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Right now in the states video games might provide more substantive learning (on some topics) than actual schools.
I shudder to think how many people like you have gotten more of their ideas about historical things from artificial video game mechanics from certain games. It's like me saying I understand the Turkish military system because I played them in Medieval Total War.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You didn't? I learned about Janissaries from a medieval RTS!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Age of Empires taught me that the Aztecs discovered and utilized gunpowder firearms around the same time as the Romans, the Norse, and the Mongols.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Medieval Total War gave me the singular pleasure of getting to use jannisaries and the sipahi side by side with no issues whatsoever, as long as I wanted, and this is an excellent means by which to do what I pleased to Europe proper, whether or not they utilized gunpowder. Thank you, video game 'history.'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you're well-informed about education in the United States...how, exactly? I mean, geeze, your source in support of your idea is a webcomic, Blayne. If you're gonna talk, cowboy up and use something that's a little less like direct pandering!
Thank you for proving myself absolutely right through your incomprehensible laziness since its clear you haven't so much as clicked on the link.
quote: I shudder to think how many people like you have gotten more of their ideas about historical things from artificial video game mechanics from certain games. It's like me saying I understand the Turkish military system because I played them in Medieval Total War.
You are a complete idiot.
quote: You didn't? I learned about Janissaries from a medieval RTS!
And so are you also contributing to a culture of laziness and incompetence.
It is indisputable that valid lessons, valid knowledge can be gleaned from playing video games. I had developed a passion for history, especially military history from games such as Caesar III, Civilization and Cossacks. One that was certainly superior than the actual high school education regarding history.
I certainly didn't hear about Frederick the Great or the Crimean War from school.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Seriously one anecdote that I learned a memorable quote from a game and you make fun of it instead of lauding it as an excellent means to enrich yourself?
Are you a bunch of ignorant children?
"Of course you would"
"sigh"
"snark about playing some shitty rts"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Thank you for proving myself absolutely right through your incomprehensible laziness since its clear you haven't so much as clicked on the link.
I didn't need to click the link. I'd already read it. I'm a long-time reader of PA, for years now, and I often enjoy the things Brahe and Gabe have to say. You weren't proven right at all. But I wouldn't link to it as a sign that I was well-informed about American education, either! Seriously. What if someone said, "I'm an knowledgable on the PRC. Here's a webcomic link!" How seriously would you take them? The two things don't match up.
It's fascinating how ready you are to accuse others of laziness and stupidity, when they are rejecting your frequent use of video games as a source of primary knowledge. Hell, what do you think the creators of those games would say to someone who asked, "Where should I go to learn about Roman or Turkish history?" Do you think they'd say, "Why, fire up Civ IV!" No! They would most likely say something like, "We've got this kickass game you can learn a lot from, but obviously it's no replacement for studious work."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne, given the fictionalized and/or simplified nature of video game history (it has to be, to let you effect it!) would you agree that it's fair to say that your experience is more an indictment of high school education than it is a celebration of how informative games are?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You are a complete idiot.
I'm always a little more amazed than usual when you lecture others on their behavior towards you on this forum, and yet go years and years unable to evolve beyond, well, this!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously one anecdote that I learned a memorable quote from a game and you make fun of it instead of lauding it as an excellent means to enrich yourself?
"When it's a source of primary learning (or at least primary talking about learning), it can be a bit frustrating."
Ain't hardly one anecdote.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(Psst, Rakeesh, Blayne's link has "patv" in the URL, so that's an episode. Unlikely that you've read it. I only say this because I fear he will point this out and miss your actual point)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Thank you for proving myself absolutely right through your incomprehensible laziness since its clear you haven't so much as clicked on the link.
I didn't need to click the link. I'd already read it. I'm a long-time reader of PA, for years now, and I often enjoy the things Brahe and Gabe have to say. You weren't proven right at all. But I wouldn't link to it as a sign that I was well-informed about American education, either! Seriously. What if someone said, "I'm an knowledgable on the PRC. Here's a webcomic link!" How seriously would you take them? The two things don't match up.
It's fascinating how ready you are to accuse others of laziness and stupidity, when they are rejecting your frequent use of video games as a source of primary knowledge. Hell, what do you think the creators of those games would say to someone who asked, "Where should I go to learn about Roman or Turkish history?" Do you think they'd say, "Why, fire up Civ IV!" No! They would most likely say something like, "We've got this kickass game you can learn a lot from, but obviously it's no replacement for studious work."
Wow.
I mean, wow.
Completely and utterly dumbfounded, I have never seen someone so cleanly and incomprehensibly walked into being so easily proven wrong before.
How about, you click the link, since it's clear you haven't been around the site in quite some time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, I'm clearly prescient.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Seriously one anecdote that I learned a memorable quote from a game and you make fun of it instead of lauding it as an excellent means to enrich yourself?
"When it's a source of primary learning (or at least primary talking about learning), it can be a bit frustrating."
Ain't hardly one anecdote.
I seem to not recall what previous anecdotes you may have referred to, none of our PRC conversations involved video games.
quote: (Psst, Rakeesh, Blayne's link has "patv" in the URL, so that's an episode. Unlikely that you've read it. I only say this because I fear he will point this out and miss your actual point)
Incorrect, as his initial point was that I didn't substantiate mine with evidence, there is my evidence in that link, to the inherent and instrinsic value of games in their ability to educate.
Quoting from Winston Churchill "I am always ready to learn, I am just unwilling to be taught." games, fill that niche.
quote: Blayne, given the fictionalized and/or simplified nature of video game history (it has to be, to let you effect it!) would you agree that it's fair to say that your experience is more an indictment of high school education than it is a celebration of how informative games are?
But there is no doubt that games can be informative, that they can be an excellent tool for education as a means of instruction, to make learning, enjoyable.
Part of my point is that the state of education can be so poor that video games can often serve as an excellent means for students to gain an interest in the topic matter, but even if education wasn't so poor, the educational and inspiration value of games isn't to be denied because "pow pew yer dead."
Heck even Call of Duty can be educational, I certainly know of very few games that show the Russian perspective of the war as arcadeish as it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Couldn't possibly be a typo-I couldn't have meant 'seen' instead of 'read', right? Clearly I must be lying about reading the comic and its associated content for years now-I stopped some time ago!
Think what you like, Blayne-believe, if you like, that I'm lying. Continue believing what you showed up to the conversation believing, no matter how often people from different social and political PoVs come along and say, "Huh. This seems pretty silly/incorrect/weird/irrelevant." It's been the hallmark of your HR participation on current events since, well, as long as I can remember. It's not constant, but it's always something that comes back up.
(Still love to hear about why anyone should consider you well-informed about education in the States, though. If we're going to talk about 'walked into being proven wrong'. I mean, hey! Just for fun, right?)
-----------
quote:I seem to not recall what previous anecdotes you may have referred to, none of our PRC conversations involved video games.
Anecdotes in which you bring up video game pop culture as primarily important to unrelated matters? Yeah, never happened before. (How `bout if I throw in the tag 'anime'?)
quote:Incorrect, as his initial point was that I didn't substantiate mine with evidence, there is my evidence in that link, to the inherent and instrinsic value of games in their ability to educate.
No, that was not the point. You're not listening. My initial point was, "Wow, you should be taken seriously as well-informed about American education...why?" A single link to a webcomic doesn't answer that question. Had you linked to, say, a serious scholarly study of American education, or an experienced commentator or something, that would be one thing. That would be something which says, "Hey, guy has a bit of a handle on things."
quote:But there is no doubt that games can be informative, that they can be an excellent tool for education as a means of instruction, to make learning, enjoyable.
Part of my point is that the state of education can be so poor that video games can often serve as an excellent means for students to gain an interest in the topic matter, but even if education wasn't so poor, the educational and inspiration value of games isn't to be denied because "pow pew yer dead."
I wonder who ever denied the assertion, directly or by implication, that video games can be informative and educational. I wonder if you can point to someone who did that, Blayne. And your initial point wasn't that games serve as a way for students to 'gain an interest'.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* Couldn't possibly be a typo-I couldn't have meant 'seen' instead of 'read', right? Clearly I must be lying about reading the comic and its associated content for years now-I stopped some time ago!
Think what you like, Blayne-believe, if you like, that I'm lying. Continue believing what you showed up to the conversation believing, no matter how often people from different social and political PoVs come along and say, "Huh. This seems pretty silly/incorrect/weird/irrelevant." It's been the hallmark of your HR participation on current events since, well, as long as I can remember. It's not constant, but it's always something that comes back up.
(Still love to hear about why anyone should consider you well-informed about education in the States, though. If we're going to talk about 'walked into being proven wrong'. I mean, hey! Just for fun, right?)
Of course you are either lying or made a huge mistake what the link links to because you don't mention Dan Floyd or Extra Credits, you refer to "webcomic" and the makers of Penny Arcade, your post is consistent only if your referring to Penny Arcade (and hence why I am saying you never clicked the link), but is entirely inconsistent if you are referring to Extra Credits, because at no point do you mention James or Daniel, only Gabe and Tycho Brahe.
quote: "Huh. This seems pretty silly/incorrect/weird/irrelevant." It's been the hallmark of your HR participation on current events since, well, as long as I can remember. It's not constant, but it's always something that comes back up.
Ah so you prefer to attack the person and some imagined "history" of posting instead of actually engaging the subject matter, one from a fairly knee jerk and frankly at this point fairly typical American response whenever your country to any degree is criticized by outsiders.
quote: (Still love to hear about why anyone should consider you well-informed about education in the States, though. If we're going to talk about 'walked into being proven wrong'. I mean, hey! Just for fun, right?)
My god what are you even talking about? By "walking into being proven wrong" I am not talking about American education, thats a spurious point at best. I am talking about your condescending bitching about me linking to a "webcomic" that you only assumed I linked to because of the domain name and are wrong because you didn't click on it.
You are responding as if I linked to Penny Arcade, not because I linked to Extra Credits.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Anecdotes in which you bring up video game pop culture as primarily important to unrelated matters? Yeah, never happened before. (How `bout if I throw in the tag 'anime'?)
Post a link then; otherwise I feel that if I ever did raise such a reference, then it is because I felt it was relevant. In much the same way someone especially on these boards may bring up Ender's Game on a hypothetical topic regarding population control or child soldiers.
quote:No, that was not the point. You're not listening. My initial point was, "Wow, you should be taken seriously as well-informed about American education...why?" A single link to a webcomic doesn't answer that question. Had you linked to, say, a serious scholarly study of American education, or an experienced commentator or something, that would be one thing. That would be something which says, "Hey, guy has a bit of a handle on things."
Except my point was never about American education, it was about how games can fill in a niche that education, any education may not be able to fill. I only used American education as an example, because its widely seen over here as being a fairly crappy educational system overall.
Something I never quite seen refuted in the various threads that complain about the state of American education.
quote:I wonder who ever denied the assertion, directly or by implication, that video games can be informative and educational. I wonder if you can point to someone who did that, Blayne. And your initial point wasn't that games serve as a way for students to 'gain an interest'.
The comments, remarks and replies made it an implicit assertion through their mockery of the concept that value could be gained from games, otherwise why "sigh" about learning about a fairly well regarded Bishop from a game?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course you are either lying or made a huge mistake what the link links to because you don't mention Dan Floyd or Extra Credits, you refer to "webcomic" and the makers of Penny Arcade, your post is consistent only if your referring to Penny Arcade (and hence why I am saying you never clicked the link), but is entirely inconsistent if you are referring to Extra Credits, because at no point do you mention James or Daniel, only Gabe and Tycho Brahe.
I didn't realize this was a PA credibility discussion (though the idea that PA's, y'know, authors and artists don't have any sway over the content is strange). At any rate, you can either believe me or not-by this point if I was lying in the first place, I would've gone quickly to see the content so as to pad my credibility. So take it whichever way you like.
quote:Ah so you prefer to attack the person and some imagined "history" of posting instead of actually engaging the subject matter, one from a fairly knee jerk and frankly at this point fairly typical American response whenever your country to any degree is criticized by outsiders.
It's not imagined. And it's frankly hysterical that amidst your lecturing of lazy, incompetent stupidity you then go on to say, "Fairly typical for an American." Hundreds of millions of people in the country-but you, from your source of knowledge being...well, I'm not sure what exactly...have determined what a 'fairly typical American response is'. And we know this because you saw some content on PA, so that proves you're well-informed!
Wait a second. That's complete nonsense. What's also a barrel of laughs is that I think there's at least as much wrong with American education as you do, and I do so not from a source of direct personal recent experience with it, but also from a bit of direct personal education on education. I'm still far from well-informed, though. I'm a slightly knowledgeable layman.
quote:My god what are you even talking about? By "walking into being proven wrong" I am not talking about American education, thats a spurious point at best. I am talking about your condescending bitching about me linking to a "webcomic" that you only assumed I linked to because of the domain name and are wrong because you didn't click on it.
My point is that it's interesting how the discussion is now about how unfair people are being towards you, rather than whether or not you have an inkling of what the hell you're talking about. As for PA vs. EC vs. Brahe vs. Daniel vs. etc., you're right about one thing-I did respond incorrectly initially. That was my bad. I can see why you'd think I was making the whole thing up, and if I were in your shoes I probably would too. *shrug* At this point, what else is there to talk about?
Certainly not the initial topic we were discussing, no, not that...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I shudder to think how many people like you have gotten more of their ideas about historical things from artificial video game mechanics from certain games...
I've seen some very interesting articles about this in the past, and indeed I would be very surprised if ANY of the gamers in this thread had not had their view of the historical world substantively altered by the games they've played.
quote:The comments, remarks and replies made it an implicit assertion through their mockery of the concept that value could be gained from games, otherwise why "sigh" about learning about a fairly well regarded Bishop from a game?
Because your often overreaching assertions of history, nations, and warfare are as suspect and biased as they would need to be to make someone go 'oh, he gets it from video games? I'm not surprised.'
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Of course you are either lying or made a huge mistake what the link links to because you don't mention Dan Floyd or Extra Credits, you refer to "webcomic" and the makers of Penny Arcade, your post is consistent only if your referring to Penny Arcade (and hence why I am saying you never clicked the link), but is entirely inconsistent if you are referring to Extra Credits, because at no point do you mention James or Daniel, only Gabe and Tycho Brahe.
I didn't realize this was a PA credibility discussion (though the idea that PA's, y'know, authors and artists don't have any sway over the content is strange). At any rate, you can either believe me or not-by this point if I was lying in the first place, I would've gone quickly to see the content so as to pad my credibility. So take it whichever way you like.
My original assumption was that you didn't follow the link initially because you were quite familiar with what they do over there and it seemed fair to assume you'd already seen it. At some point you later followed the link and it turned out that either A) You hadn't seen it, so you watched it or B) You had, in fact, seen it. That's what I did!
In either case, though, I don't see how it effects anything you've said. I also find it sort of hilarious that this has become such a big deal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is pretty funny, in a strange sort of way. So too is when multiple people, who otherwise disagree on a lot, say very similar things of Blayne-things that would take many hours of research to exhaustively demonstrate-he responds with something like, "I don't do that. Link to me doing that!"
No, what almost always ends up being the case is that lots of other people who disagree with each other are nonetheless together wrong when they share an opinion about him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've seen some very interesting articles about this in the past, and indeed I would be very surprised if ANY of the gamers in this thread had not had their view of the historical world substantively altered by the games they've played.
When I play historical fantasy and reenactment games, they have always seemed like unrepresentative caricature for the sake of gameplay. It doesn't matter which factions are which, they might as well be the Targaryens versus the Romulans. They are in no way a substitute for actual education. I'm glad they inspire interest, though.
And, just to make this thread complete:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "snark about playing some shitty rts"
the Total War series is better than the Europa Universalis series, boom
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The last historical RTS I played was, as mentioned, probably Age of Empires 1 or 2 or something. I think that disqualifies me from the next stage of this discussion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've seen some very interesting articles about this in the past, and indeed I would be very surprised if ANY of the gamers in this thread had not had their view of the historical world substantively altered by the games they've played.
When I play historical fantasy and reenactment games, they have always seemed like unrepresentative caricature for the sake of gameplay. It doesn't matter which factions are which, they might as well be the Targaryens versus the Romulans. They are in no way a substitute for actual education. I'm glad they inspire interest, though.
And, just to make this thread complete:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "snark about playing some shitty rts"
the Total War series is better than the Europa Universalis series, boom
Johan's racist eurocentricism aside the Europe games are infinitely better by just about every metric, except for those who desire games with tactical battle enviroments; You choose specifically one of the worst examples in gaming for a counter factual in a brazen case of cherry picking, the Europa games are possibly one of the best candidates for tangential learning that video games can offer.
And is one of Daniel Floyd's recommended "games you might not have heard of but should give a try".
Games are not a substitute, or at least not a substitute for college or university level education, high school education undoubtably will vary, but they have value that the snark implied otherwise and is objectionable.
quote: t is pretty funny, in a strange sort of way. So too is when multiple people, who otherwise disagree on a lot, say very similar things of Blayne-things that would take many hours of research to exhaustively demonstrate-he responds with something like, "I don't do that. Link to me doing that!"
Funny how so far you and maybe one other person claim any such thing, but even if more did, I don't see it as particularly mature or intellectually honest of you to appeal to dogpiling.
Also, what the hell are you talking about? Hours of research for what? What carefully crafted point did I bother to make that would even come close to warrant it? Are you still on my remark about the shittiness of US education? Who cares. That was never my point, I came in with a quote, a quote I said I learned from a game well known for its memorable quotes, the response has been immature and utterly ignorant dogpile that I took to be condenscention regarding the value of gaining knowledge from games.
An assumed argument, that I responded to, from a link from Extra Credits, that you still refuse to respond to, and refuse to concede that you were wrong to assume it was from Penny Arcade, your responses still completely betray an astounding level of ignorance from you on this point.
Penny Arcade is NOT extra credits, Extra Credits is NOT a webcomic, PA is just their host and a very recent one.
Substantiate or concede.
quote: I didn't realize this was a PA credibility discussion (though the idea that PA's, y'know, authors and artists don't have any sway over the content is strange). At any rate, you can either believe me or not-by this point if I was lying in the first place, I would've gone quickly to see the content so as to pad my credibility. So take it whichever way you like.
Which proves my point, because somehow, magically, despite my link having nothing to do with Penny Arcade, you still think it does. Strange.
quote: Because your often overreaching assertions of history, nations, and warfare are as suspect and biased as they would need to be to make someone go 'oh, he gets it from video games? I'm not surprised.'
Which is of course bullshit. You're not basing that on anything more credible then your gut feeling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The last historical RTS I played was, as mentioned, probably Age of Empires 1 or 2 or something. I think that disqualifies me from the next stage of this discussion.
quote:Johan's racist eurocentricism aside the Europe games are infinitely better by just about every metric
minus, of course, 'being popular' and 'being fun.' boom.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Samp: Uh... ?
Sorry, it's been years. I don't get it.
Edit: Referring to the AoE meme you linked, not your nerdwar with Blayne.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Johan's racist eurocentricism aside the Europe games are infinitely better by just about every metric
minus, of course, 'being popular' and 'being fun.' boom.
Good job substantiating yourself there dipshit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That was pretty easy.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Johan's racist eurocentricism aside the Europe games are infinitely better by just about every metric
minus, of course, 'being popular' and 'being fun.' boom.
Good job substantiating yourself there dipshit.
Blayne Bradley, for whom little things like "not getting angry and swearing at people because they disagree with your taste in games" is impossible.
Thread is now complete.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Please knock if off Blayne.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Don't post when you are angry Blayne, it's advice somebody gave me a long time ago and it's been very helpful.)
[ October 18, 2011, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Please knock if off Blayne.
Tell him to apologize and I will. Or preferably edit his posts too if you want to be even handed about it.
His post is clearly trolling and baiting me, and a clear violation of the ToS and every time I open this thread his post will still be there, insulting and offending me while its there, I insist on its removal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I self identify as "slightly to the left of Karl Marx" so its kind of shocking to me when I'm in Europe and I find myself aligned with moderates.
Heh. In Europe I am aligned with conservatives on most issues. But, just as a telltale, the "Conservative" wing of Czech politics is dominated by the Civil Democratic party, ODS. The Liberal party is full-bore socialist- and "conservatives" in Central Europe means people who want to control the size of the social state- not eliminate it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: Could you leave Blayne alone for the time being. Thanks. ----
Blayne: Samprimary's behavior has no bearing on what you are required to do.
His posts range from "Your idea doesn't make sense because..." and the clearly facetious "Europa Universalis is lame, Total War rules!"
He hasn't said anything like, "You are a freaking idiot Blayne." But you have, twice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think the primary function of these labels is as shorthand for the people around us, so as long as you're communicating with mostly Americans, seems like it makes sense to use the labels as they are commonly understood in America. No?
Perhaps, but "moderate" isn't just a synonym for "centrist". It means more than just being between the two extremes. It also reflects an underlying attitude towards solving complex problems.
Extremists (on all points on the spectrum) are driven by ideology. They believe that they have found the one true answer. Since they are certain they have the best solution, they see any comprise as a sellout and negotiating as a weakness. If you oppose them -- you are opposing virtue. To extremists, the idea of the "loyal opposition" is an anathema. If you aren't with them, you are an enemy.
In contrast, Moderates believe that both sides tend have valid points, so they listen to both sides and look for a middle ground that addresses the valid concerns of all. Moderates tend to believe that considering problems from many different perspectives leads to better solutions. Moderates see compromise as a strength and a virtue. They believe that building consensus and finding common ground produces better results.
But just because moderates believe many perspectives have value, does not mean they think every perspective has equal value. Just because they believe in finding common ground, doesn't mean they think every compromise is reasonable. So a person with a generally moderate approach to things, can find themselves in a situation where they are far from the middle of the political spectrum.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The comments, remarks and replies made it an implicit assertion through their mockery of the concept that value could be gained from games, otherwise why "sigh" about learning about a fairly well regarded Bishop from a game?
Because your often overreaching assertions of history, nations, and warfare are as suspect and biased as they would need to be to make someone go 'oh, he gets it from video games? I'm not surprised.'
This. Blayne, I don't doubt that one can discover all sorts of things from playing games. Little tidbits of interesting things. Like learning US history from watching 1776 or reading historical novels. What is often lacking, however, is context. For example there is a whole story behind that quote, a whole life of heroism and care for the poor, a legacy soured by a Church lacking moral courage, a background of relevant political and social justice that feeds into the discussion. But you had a snippet.
If those snippets make you curious enough to learn the whole story, that is great. I just don't see that is happening. Hence, "sigh".
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Please knock if off Blayne.
Tell him to apologize and I will. Or preferably edit his posts too if you want to be even handed about it.
His post is clearly trolling and baiting me, and a clear violation of the ToS and every time I open this thread his post will still be there, insulting and offending me while its there, I insist on its removal.
You're appealing to the tos now after being inexcusably insulting and swearing multiple times?
Also I would like to see the no baiting section of the rules.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No no, the rules are what Blayne needs them to be. It's part of his relationship with authority- it has to excuse his puerile behavior and embody understanding of his specialness, and work like a scythe against others when they puncture his bubble of self-importance.
The attitude is sort of like money with your parents- what they have is for everyone, and what you have is yours alone. That is, the rules need to be enforced for everyone, stringently, except for me, because I'm the baby.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think the primary function of these labels is as shorthand for the people around us, so as long as you're communicating with mostly Americans, seems like it makes sense to use the labels as they are commonly understood in America. No?
Perhaps, but "moderate" isn't just a synonym for "centrist". It means more than just being between the two extremes. It also reflects an underlying attitude towards solving complex problems.
Extremists (on all points on the spectrum) are driven by ideology. They believe that they have found the one true answer. Since they are certain they have the best solution, they see any comprise as a sellout and negotiating as a weakness. If you oppose them -- you are opposing virtue. To extremists, the idea of the "loyal opposition" is an anathema. If you aren't with them, you are an enemy.
In contrast, Moderates believe that both sides tend have valid points, so they listen to both sides and look for a middle ground that addresses the valid concerns of all. Moderates tend to believe that considering problems from many different perspectives leads to better solutions. Moderates see compromise as a strength and a virtue. They believe that building consensus and finding common ground produces better results.
But just because moderates believe many perspectives have value, does not mean they think every perspective has equal value. Just because they believe in finding common ground, doesn't mean they think every compromise is reasonable. So a person with a generally moderate approach to things, can find themselves in a situation where they are far from the middle of the political spectrum.
That's really well-said, Rabbit. Perhaps I should have said Tom would likely not call himself a "centrist" then? I don't know.
By this definition I consider myself a moderate, albeit one who reached very different conclusions than you. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You're appealing to the tos now after being inexcusably insulting and swearing multiple times?
Also I would like to see the no baiting section of the rules.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No no, the rules are what Blayne needs them to be. It's part of his relationship with authority- it has to excuse his puerile behavior and embody understanding of his specialness, and work like a scythe against others when they puncture his bubble of self-importance.
The attitude is sort of like money with your parents- what they have is for everyone, and what you have is yours alone. That is, the rules need to be enforced for everyone, stringently, except for me, because I'm the baby.
Guys I think JB has this in the bag now. Maybe we could lay off of Blayne a little?
Whether or not you're right is sort of immaterial at this point, because I think we all know that the way you're saying it is more likely to just result in him flipping out more, as opposed to taking a step back and chilling as JB has asked him to do.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Ha, I guess. I'm just *amused* by the idea.
It is also too late to ask the one question I did really want to ask, because JB was already involved by the time I finished the snit-fit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
FWIW, I think I'm pretty centrist, too, even by American standards.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: FWIW, I think I'm pretty centrist, too, even by American standards.
^
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The comments, remarks and replies made it an implicit assertion through their mockery of the concept that value could be gained from games, otherwise why "sigh" about learning about a fairly well regarded Bishop from a game?
Because your often overreaching assertions of history, nations, and warfare are as suspect and biased as they would need to be to make someone go 'oh, he gets it from video games? I'm not surprised.'
This. Blayne, I don't doubt that one can discover all sorts of things from playing games. Little tidbits of interesting things. Like learning US history from watching 1776 or reading historical novels. What is often lacking, however, is context. For example there is a whole story behind that quote, a whole life of heroism and care for the poor, a legacy soured by a Church lacking moral courage, a background of relevant political and social justice that feeds into the discussion. But you had a snippet.
If those snippets make you curious enough to learn the whole story, that is great. I just don't see that is happening. Hence, "sigh".
But thats an assumption you've made, you haven't thought to ask if that is the case, as it stands I do some of the context in which that quote came from, mostly from reading Chomsky.
quote: No no, the rules are what Blayne needs them to be. It's part of his relationship with authority- it has to excuse his puerile behavior and embody understanding of his specialness, and work like a scythe against others when they puncture his bubble of self-importance.
The attitude is sort of like money with your parents- what they have is for everyone, and what you have is yours alone. That is, the rules need to be enforced for everyone, stringently, except for me, because I'm the baby.
You're the least in the position to talk considering your history of going into my threads to act like an ass, insult my work, and belittle my goals and motivation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: FWIW, I think I'm pretty centrist, too, even by American standards.
^
It's actually worth a lot, to me. Very interesting!
Do you think the OWS movement is, on the whole, fairly centrist too? Or are they more extreme?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Whether or not you're right is sort of immaterial at this point,
Let's think about this connotation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Er?
Look, you guys are right about Blayne. I think that's sort of obvious. And I know that he doesn't tend to change much so I suppose it's easy to not care if you're communicating to him in a way that is even less likely to engender a change. But once the moderator steps in it just seems like a bad idea to keep baiting him. It's done. He took the bait, as everyone knew he would. I must be missing something... What purpose is served by continued mockery?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think there's much of a purpose to continued mockery, but I don't think it's solely mockery. There is also criticism. It's warranted, especially considering that this is a cycle unchanged by time that occurs the same regardless of levels and types of — and I'm going to put this in giant quotes — "provocation."
i WILL be having it the next time I come by to see that we have decided to revisit this time-worn situation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, suddenly I feel like a bad person for liking Civilization II or something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's unfortunate Sam. This was an interesting political discussion, and now its just another pointless argument about Blayne. And you are largely responsible for that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Man, suddenly I feel like a bad person for liking Civilization II or something.
You are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That's unfortunate Sam. This was an interesting political discussion, and now its just another pointless argument about Blayne. And you are largely responsible for that.
There's only one person here who is largely responsible for this derail. It is not me. It is not Rakeesh, who got into this way deeper than I was ever going to. Don't offer opportunities to confuse who's at fault for what behavior. You're also coming in at the tail end of this pointless argument, so why prolong it?
quote:Do you think the OWS movement is, on the whole, fairly centrist too? Or are they more extreme?
The OWS movement in and of itself has got to be closer to the edges than the center, especially when you count the people who are driving the movement most publicly. I would have never expected it to have worked in any real sense, that it would have fizzled out well before now. I'm continually saying that I'm amazed that this was what ended up working. Yet somehow this motley crew of various fringes and frustrated people all banding together for this message have really actually managed to resonate with the center, and found support with most americans. I guess it's just a combination of good timing, good exposure (cops being idiots was the gladwellian tipping point for the movement), and the right message towards elements of our society which most people agree are wrong and frustratingly unfair and which we all really want to change in spite of a sort of ingrained, exasperated hopelessness towards congress.
The way the OWS is out on the edges isn't very well plotted on a line, either. It's more like globs on the outward area of a circle in various places. They're not yet very well analyzed demographically. Hard to snapshot, I assume? They're also apparently drawing inwards because otherwise not extremely affiliated people are jumping on board in droves, not because of being anarchists or minarchists or Student Workers or Portlandese hipsterals or whatever, but because they're just a wide body of young people who struggle for employment due to forces well outside their control, feeling like victims to a system run amok for the benefit and enrichment of an already obscenely entitled oligarchic elite.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: FWIW, I think I'm pretty centrist, too, even by American standards.
^
It's actually worth a lot, to me. Very interesting!
Do you think the OWS movement is, on the whole, fairly centrist too? Or are they more extreme?
They are true conservatism because they want to see a return to the rule of law.
Posted via HTC EVO phone, your best first choice for an android phone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The groups that are driving OWS are, by and large, not centrist. But I think the most valuable voices in that group are the centrists. There's a reason the motto that's stuck is "we are the 99%," and not "we are the 15% who can take a few days off of work to shout in a park."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, hypothetically, if the OWS crowd was just the 15% that had the free time to shout in the park, do you think such a group would shy away from using "We are the 99%" as their slogan anyway?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That is as hypothetical as me asking "Well if the Republican parties really were just the 1% what would stop them from claiming to represent average middle american folk anyways"?
Its a loaded question completely divorced from reality.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow - I can't keep up with this thread!
Did I miss any commentary on how poor people are supposed to buy used food or toilet paper?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, hypothetically, if the OWS crowd was just the 15% that had the free time to shout in the park, do you think such a group would shy away from using "We are the 99%" as their slogan anyway?
Oh, absolutely not. But the beauty of it is that they're not. That 15% may be heavily over-represented in the protests (and all long-running protests) by virtue of the fact that not everyone can spend multiple days protesting, in the same way that many of the people who were able to protest in Wisconsin were people with sick days saved up, but the Web shout-outs and other participatory activities have drawn a considerably larger and more diverse crowd. The 15% is doing its part by going somewhere to shout; the rest of us need to shout in the venues available to us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I was largely at fault. I should've stopped sooner, but didn't. Bad habit of mine, and I'm sorry I engaged in it this time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom, thanks for answering my question.
Blayne, I certainly have a different impression of OWS than Tom does, but I was asking the question honestly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That's sorta a part of the problem though, why ask that what if the movement wasn't of its principle membership? Sure it would be important to vet a movement such as this to make sure, it is a fair question. Do popular movements such as OWS and the Tea Party represent the people they claim to represent? What rules and principles do these movements follow and are they consistent with the desires and frustrations of the demographics they claim to represent?
Protest representation has always taken two forms, either it claims to speak for people, or it claims to represent the people. Various counter culture protests, say the G20 in Toronto, involve a lot of what some would characterize as the Activist demographic speaking their minds on issues they believe are important, to both act to pressure government and their elected representatives and to increase awareness so that otherwise un or misinformed people may know of the issues at stack.
The anti war protests are excellent examples of a more representative movement short and stillborn as they ended up, a large number of people in the hundreds of thousands from all walks of life. They for sure spoke for broad cross sections of the American electorate who had deep distaste for the war.
OWS is increasingly, day by day becomming representative protest.
But on the other hand, asking what if hypotheticals doesn't really advance the discourse.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone watch the debate tonight?
I'll watch it when I get back to Nebraska (went home to Detroit for a visit, remembered how much I love trees and the smell of decomposing vegetation, heading back to the plains tomorrow), but the recaps seem to imply that the gloves really came off, and the frontrunners got hammered.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am royally frustrated that work prevents me from catching any of these debates. I'll have to read the synopses instead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
YouTube has them from start to finish, usually with the commercials edited out.
Usually one of the papers has the transcript to read within 48 hours.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rick Perry dropped "brother," on Herman Cain 3 times in their first interaction tonight in the debate.
I don't even know what to make of that, I just found it interesting; especially after the "Niggerhead Ranch" fiasco. Is Perry trying to "black it up" calling Cain brother? If so, that's rather ham-handed.
But there is a cousining, patronizing aspect to it as well. It only helps highlight Cain's speech and manner, which is full of dropped 'g's, and provincial pronunciations: "Cakalate," for "calculate," "Valyuh added" and so on.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I watched most of it. I think it needed a laugh track.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic so far- I'm catching up on youtube. I rarely last the whole debate, they're just so ridiculous.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But there is a cousining, patronizing aspect to it as well. It only helps highlight Cain's speech and manner, which is full of dropped 'g's, and provincial pronunciations: "Cakalate," for "calculate," "Valyuh added" and so on.
Out of curiosity, does this attribute of Cain's speech mean something significant to you, or is this just a sort of general observation?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Orincoro meant "cozening" rather than "cousining." I think the suggestion is that Perry's faking it to try and point out that Cain both looks like and sounds like the stereotypical black person that the stereotypical Republican voter is going to have a pavlovian negative response to.
Dropped g's and "cakalate" might turn them off. But when he says stuff like "valyuh" I think he sounds down homey and rather folksy in a way Republicans tend to love. Is it possible that's just how Perry talks? Perhaps, but it's a prime target for suspicion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's an observation primarily. I think the obvious issue that some of the Republican base is going to have with Cain should he be nominated (though I think there's little chance of that), is that he is black, and that he speaks with a regional (and distinctly ethnic) accent- and not a charming one for a lot of people.
Is his speech significant in and of itself? Yes. I would only vote for someone I felt could present himself as the educated person he/she is. I felt similarly about Bush, and even more so about Palin. Diction and elocution are comforting indications of competence- of the understanding that you are "playing the game," and that you have manners and are worldly. Those are all superficial signs to a degree- nevertheless they can be accurate. Cain is educated, but he falls in and out of regional accents in a way that is not flattering, in my opinion. Maybe he's trying to appeal to a certain base by doing that, or it's just his normal manner- but no, I don't find it appealing.
I think part of speaking in a more "political" accent or dialect is surrendering a bit of the cultural armor you possess. It comforts people and lets them know that you understand them- that you identify with a broader spectrum of cultures outside your own. Regional accents can make people sound more self-assured, but also militant, aggressive, or hard-headed. They have more of a defining characteristic, but also less ability to appeal to people who are foreign to that background.
For me personally, when I hear a strong regional accent from a politician, especially one that is in fact a smattering of regionalism over what was at one time probably a university cultivated neutrality, I don't find it endearing- probably because it tells me that this person is speaking *to* the people who identify with that accent, and *at* everyone else. That's why neutral accents exist- they don't embody a viewpoint.
I'm not a dialectical expert, but I am a keen observer of speaking patterns, and in Cain's case, my opinion is that his accent is a put on. Or more properly, I think it is the expression of something more complicated than a simple result of his linguistic roots. Which is fairly common, mind, and not at all *wrong,* in and of itself. But I'll tell you, and I think you *can* ascribe this reaction to latent racism on my part, which I will not deny, I don't identify with people who talk that way, I have trouble imagining a person who talks that way identifying with me. And that is a problem for a person who wants to be President.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think Orincoro meant "cozening" rather than "cousining." I think the suggestion is that Perry's faking it to try and point out that Cain both looks like and sounds like the stereotypical black person that the stereotypical Republican voter is going to have a pavlovian negative response to.
Yeah that's what I meant. And honestly, even coming from a person with multiple black relatives whom he loves, I too have a pavlovian negative response to stereotypically black speech. I just do. A lifetime of movie and tv stereotyping and real life experience has made my superficial reaction to stereotypically black speech a negative one. I wish I could help it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks for your honesty! That's really interesting. The only part I specifically disagree with is that Cain is putting the accent on. My dad grew up in the south, and even going to a university, living overseas, and then living in California for 40+ years after that was not enough to remove all of his drawl. I don't get the impression Cain is putting the accent on at all, it's just there.
I think you have a legitimate point about people judging based on those accents (and again, thanks for your honesty re: your personal reaction) but I do think that this reaction is sort of sad. I find accents of all kinds, whether regional dialects or because of a different first language, to be rather endearing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not a "put on" in the totally mercenary sense. Maybe more in the sense of a Kennedy or GW Bush. It's not a deliberate act, but a sort subconscious decision to go a certain route- like speaking in a formal or informal register in any given situation. I say this because if you listen to him, you can hear quite clearly that he is able to pronounce any given word in a neutral way quite naturally, but adds a regional pronunciation at points for a desired emphasis. That in itself can be a speech pattern a person develops naturally- my mother slides into a rusty midwestern twang at times, but only when the desired tone is "ah well..." So "put on" is a strong term, as is "affectation." This is just something more complicated than where Cain is from. As I said, regional accents constitute a piece of "cultural armor," a person can indicate through accent an attitude or an approach they can't express in words.
quote: I find accents of all kinds, whether regional dialects or because of a different first language, to be rather endearing.
I don't mind regional accents or foreign accents. I have an unusual accent myself, I am told, which is a function of having lived for some time in several different countries. And I'm also aware that my accent is different in different situations. Really, I think I just ascribe more meaning to an accent than you do. I've lived in different places in England, and in Spain, where accents *matter* in a way they don't in America- and I think that affected me deeply.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really, Dan? How much experience do you have personally with accents or speech patterns that aren't very close to yours, but are still English?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Not a "put on" in the totally mercenary sense. Maybe more in the sense of a Kennedy or GW Bush. It's not a deliberate act, but a sort subconscious decision to go a certain route- like speaking in a formal or informal register in any given situation. I say this because if you listen to him, you can hear quite clearly that he is able to pronounce any given word in a neutral way quite naturally, but adds a regional pronunciation at points for a desired emphasis. That in itself can be a speech pattern a person develops naturally- my mother slides into a rusty midwestern twang at times, but only when the desired tone is "ah well..." So "put on" is a strong term, as is "affectation." This is just something more complicated than where Cain is from. As I said, regional accents constitute a piece of "cultural armor," a person can indicate through accent an attitude or an approach they can't express in words.
quote: I find accents of all kinds, whether regional dialects or because of a different first language, to be rather endearing.
I don't mind regional accents or foreign accents. I have an unusual accent myself, I am told, which is a function of having lived for some time in several different countries. And I'm also aware that my accent is different in different situations. Really, I think I just ascribe more meaning to an accent than you do. I've lived in different places in England, and in Spain, where accents *matter* in a way they don't in America- and I think that affected me deeply.
Now that you have clarified, I agree with you even more!
I grew up in California, and yet, probably due to my afore-mentioned father, I find myself falling into a drawl in certain circumstances. It's definitely not a conscious thing, but it happens. I agree that this is almost certainly true for Cain as well.
It's interesting to me because I actually think that Obama has used that sort of accent as an affectation in certain instances. This could be my own bias, and I'm absolutely willing to concede it could be unconscious for him too, but every now and then he gives a more "folksy" speech where he starts dropping Gs like crazy, and it just feels forced to me. (most recent example that springs to mind was in the speech where he tells the black caucus to stop "complainin', stop grumblin'..." etc. Oh here, I found a clip.)
What do you think: Is that my bias, or does it seem a little more forced here?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Really, Dan? How much experience do you have personally with accents or speech patterns that aren't very close to yours, but are still English?
Is this a quiz? I'm detecting some surprising skepticism... what about me makes you assume that I am lying? Maybe I'm reading too much into your "tone," since this is text. If so I apologize.
To answer your question, well... my dad is southern, as I said, but I grew up in California, so his accent was very watered down by the time I came along. My grandparents, cousins, and aunt all had hardcore Memphis accents. My mom is from Pennsylvania, and again most of her accent was gone by the time I grew up but her sister has lived in Boston all this time, so she also has a pretty noticeable accent.
I spent several years living in rural Arizona on the border of the Navajo reservation, population was split pretty evenly between white, Mexican, and Navajo. A lot of the white people had a sort of southwestern redneck drawl, the recent Mexican immigrants had the accent you'd expect, and the Navajos had their own unique accent. I ran a few restaurants there, so I had a lot of employees from all three groups and, likewise, my customers ran the same gamut.
I also worked a fairly low-wage job in the East Bay area, and worked with a lot of people with, I don't know what they're called. Urban accents? Whatever the politically correct way to describe the accent that people associate with lower-class black people but is in reality pretty common amongs a subset of urban lower class people of any race. Whatever it's called. Most of the management staff had varying degrees of that accent. At that job I also worked with a lot of Filipinos, including one guy on my team who was without question the coolest guy there.
More recently I've been working in the software industry, and had a few interactions with both Indians and Eastern Europeans (Ukraine & Russia mostly). Not a lot though. (Yet!)
My first girlfriend was Australian. And my current partner's best friend in all the world is British. Also, though my partner grew up in Arizona, most of her family is from Wisconsin, and we visit them nearly every year.
Oh! And I used to game with a Nigerian, but I met him through a mutual friend and that friend and I had a falling out, so I haven't seen either of them in over a year.
Of all of those, I think that I probably have the lowest opinion of the more extreme Wisconsin accents. Even then it's mostly their slang that simultaneously amuses and infuriates me, not as much their pronunciation or elocution. But like I said, I'm actually rather fond of all of these accents. I feel like my own accent is terribly boring by comparison.
Edit: Oh my god I feel like such a jackass. My brother-in-law is Norwegian. I can't conceive of how I forgot to mention him, since I'm far closer to him than I am to my actual brother. I guess I've known him and his family since I was a kid (he married my sister, who is much older than I am) so I'm so used to it that their accents barely register for me anymore.
[ October 19, 2011, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Seriously though I'm not sure how I feel about all that stuff up there. Again, Rakeesh, maybe I'm misreading you, but it feels a bit odd to be quizzed on my credentials re: accents. It feels like you're inviting me to do the sort of thing that everyone (rightfully) made fun of... malanthrop? was that his name?... for. He made racist comments and then said "it's cool, I know a Jamaican guy!"
If what I said about accents seems wrong to you, then let me know. But if that's the case, does my personal experience with accents make it less wrong?
Edit: I'm probably over-thinking this. I made a comment about my personal fondness for accents, it makes sense that you'd be curious what my actual sample size was. Sorry. I would remove this post entirely, but now I'm too proud of my Jamaican neighbors reference.
[ October 19, 2011, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What do you think: Is that my bias, or does it seem a little more forced here?
Yeah, Obama dropping 'g's and "blacking it up" is about the most awkward display he ever makes. I can't tell whether it is because he despises the idea of having to embody that part of American cultural heritage, or because he is just not very good at doing it, but yes, it is forced.
Actually, I've sometimes entertained the notion that it is all a Xanatos Gambit, and that he is actually *good* at the "blacking it up" thing, and just pretends to be bad at it so as to endear himself to everyone by being so unnatural at being black.
Probably though this is all just subconscious mediation between imperatives that Obama must fulfill. Be relatable to whites. Be "black," be uncomfortable with being black so as to put whites at ease... rinse repeat.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Actually, I've sometimes entertained the notion that it is all a Xanatos Gambit, and that he is actually *good* at the "blacking it up" thing, and just pretends to be bad at it so as to endear himself to everyone by being so unnatural at being black.
That is hilaripressing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Probably though this is all just subconscious mediation between imperatives that Obama must fulfill. Be relatable to whites. Be "black," be uncomfortable with being black so as to put whites at ease... rinse repeat.
To me, nothing is going to be as annoying as finding out what GWB sounded like in private versus his his public 'i'm the candidate you could have a beer with yeehaw' voice
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Changing accents is often not a conscious choice. Some peoples accents are simply a lot more labile than others. A few years ago a friend pointed out that I pick up a bit of an accent from everyone I speak to. It's totally a subconscious thing. I can't do it if I'm thinking about it. In contrast, I know a few people who've been in Trinidad for 30 years and haven't picked up even the slightest hint of a local accent.
[ October 19, 2011, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Changing accents is often not a conscious choice. Some peoples accents are simply a lot more labile than others. A few years ago a friend pointed out that I pick up a bit of an accent from everyone I speak to. It's totally a subconscious thing. I can't do it if I'm thinking about it. In contrast, I know a few people who've been in Trinidad for 30 years and haven't picked up even the slightest hint of a local accent.
Oh I definitely do this, though I am quite conscious it's going on when I speak. This isn't to say I make it happen, but I just go with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
Sorry, you were reading something that wasn't there, but I definitely get why you thought (for a moment) why it was there. Should've phrased differently.
Anyway, the reason I asked was part curiosity to see what kind of experience informed your statement (I didn't doubt that you meant it, but I did wonder how widely drawn it was from varying accents), and part was because it's the sort of thing that's often said but much less often actually true, in life in general. People 'love immigrants' or 'don't mind religion, they're spiritual' or 'have a black friend' or 'I'm a moderate, except I almost always in all cases vote the party line'. Stuff like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Changing accents is often not a conscious choice. Some peoples accents are simply a lot more labile than others. A few years ago a friend pointed out that I pick up a bit of an accent from everyone I speak to. It's totally a subconscious thing. I can't do it if I'm thinking about it. In contrast, I know a few people who've been in Trinidad for 30 years and haven't picked up even the slightest hint of a local accent.
I notice that I do this as well, though on a much narrower scale. I can hear myself doing it sometimes, if I pay attention, depending on my company.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have an allergy to "folksy" in presidents.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My personal belief is that folksy, or regional shades of folksy, in someone who will be as polished and communications-aware as a Presidential candidate will never be anything less than at least partially a put-on. There are people who tell `em-well paid people-what color ties make them most likeable to the public on what day of the week for a given event and season of the year. There are certainly also people who tell them things like 'it's better to sound like...'
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... It feels like you're inviting me to do the sort of thing that everyone (rightfully) made fun of... malanthrop? was that his name?... for. He made racist comments and then said "it's cool, I know a Jamaican guy!" ...
To me, it's fine, especially when you and Orincoro mentioned that these is your personal feelings about these accents.
The "deal" with malanthrop was not so much that had feelings about stereotypical minorities, but that he used this simultaneously as proof that he was not racist and as evidence that he and the minority in question understood each other and agreed with each other's positions.
(The "deal" with me anyways)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Changing accents is often not a conscious choice. Some peoples accents are simply a lot more labile than others. A few years ago a friend pointed out that I pick up a bit of an accent from everyone I speak to. It's totally a subconscious thing. I can't do it if I'm thinking about it. In contrast, I know a few people who've been in Trinidad for 30 years and haven't picked up even the slightest hint of a local accent.
I notice that I do this as well, though on a much narrower scale. I can hear myself doing it sometimes, if I pay attention, depending on my company.
The worst example of this, for me, is that I have a particular sort of horrible cackling laugh that I seem to only do when I'm in the company of certain really really nerdy somewhat socially awkward friends. Which I guess is better than the alternative, if the alternative were to laugh like that all the time. But... dang. Whenever I hear myself doing it I'm just baffled.
PS: Rakeesh, thanks for confirming that I misread what you meant. I definitely understand why you were curious. I try not to make assertions like that unless they seem genuinely accurate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have an allergy to "folksy" in presidents.
I agree. In one of the tributes to Steve Jobs it said "B students surround themselves with C students to make themselves look smart, A students surround themselves with A+ students." I want a president whose smarter than I am, but it seems that many Americans prefer a President who make them feel smart.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I CAN HAVE A BEER WITH HIM
HE AM MY PRESIDENT
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think there is truth to that, Rabbit, but in fairness I also think that some A or A+ students go out of their way to make people around them feel stupid. And that tendency, in my opinion, is far worse than folksiness.
It's also worth mentioning, again, that folksiness doesn't automatically equate to being a B or C student. I've had great, high level philosophy or armchair science conversations with people who sounded lahk purty big rednecks, if y'all know whut Ah mean. I recently took a class from a man with a very distinct low-class Londoner accent, an' I fink 'e did a bang-up job. And one of my old bosses, a highly effective manager in the financial industry, just loved to axe me questions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think there is truth to that, Rabbit, but in fairness I also think that some A or A+ students go out of their way to make people around them feel stupid. And that tendency, in my opinion, is far worse than folksiness.
Well, sure. However, you'll rarely find a Presidential candidate who likes (and acts on) a desire to make people feel stupid in his day-to-day. Politician, y'know? Not very long-term-success-strategy.
What you will find, though, is a politician who wants (and crafts a public image) to be considered 'just folks'. Which is not at all strange when you consider how someone who gets elected is elected (politics, getting people to like you) but when you consider 'doing the job', it's just an awful metric.
The President as someone you could have a beer with and enjoy spending time with is one thing. I can sign on with that. The President as like the people you bowl/videogame/watch football/jog/etc with, on the other hand. I can't think of a single person I know that I would say of them, "This is a person I would trust in terms of conscience and capability with the Presidency." Can you?
Part of the strangeness of attacking 'Ivy League (liberals)'. Parents generally would very much love if their children went to an Ivy League school, or one on the same academic level with them. Then all of a sudden one guy hints that because this other guy performed brilliantly in school, he thinks you're stupid while he is 'just folks'...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, I'll be the first to agree with you that it isn't fair to judge a person's intelligence by their accent. For example, I had a brilliant math professor who spoke with a heavy Texan drawl. Though I did laugh at the way he said "La Hoppy-talls" rule, I never doubted his mathematical prowess.
But I think that sounding folksy is not simply having an accent or speaking a non standard dialect. Sarah Palin doesn't have a distinctive rural accent and yet sounds folksy. Jimmy Carter doesn't sound folksy to me even though he has a thicker southern drawl than Bush.
And while I'm sure there are people who go out of their way to make people feel stupid, its not a trait I've noticed in politicians.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But I think that sounding folksy is not simply having an accent or speaking a non standard dialect. Sarah Palin doesn't have a distinctive rural accent and yet sounds folksy. Jimmy Carter doesn't sound folksy to me even though he has a thicker southern drawl than Bush.
I definitely hear a distinct accent in Palin's speech. Reminds me of Minnesota, but then, I've never been to Alaska so *shrug*.
But your point is a good one, there is a different between the two. Edited for a typo
[ October 19, 2011, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Though I did laugh at the way he said "La Hoppy-talls" rule
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But I think that sounding folksy is not simply having an accent or speaking a non standard dialect. Sarah Palin doesn't have a distinctive rural accent and yet sounds folksy. Jimmy Carter doesn't sound folksy to me even though he has a thicker southern drawl than Bush.
I definitely hear a distinct accent in Palin's speech. Reminds me of Minnesota, but then, I've never been to Alaska so *shrug*.
Her accent is not *distinctive* but it is definitely present- perhaps that's what The Rabbit was pointing out. It's not *an* accent in the sense of representing a particular region, just a sort vaguely pan-northern twang.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think there is truth to that, Rabbit, but in fairness I also think that some A or A+ students go out of their way to make people around them feel stupid. And that tendency, in my opinion, is far worse than folksiness.
Well, sure. However, you'll rarely find a Presidential candidate who likes (and acts on) a desire to make people feel stupid in his day-to-day. Politician, y'know? Not very long-term-success-strategy.
What you will find, though, is a politician who wants (and crafts a public image) to be considered 'just folks'. Which is not at all strange when you consider how someone who gets elected is elected (politics, getting people to like you) but when you consider 'doing the job', it's just an awful metric.
The President as someone you could have a beer with and enjoy spending time with is one thing. I can sign on with that. The President as like the people you bowl/videogame/watch football/jog/etc with, on the other hand. I can't think of a single person I know that I would say of them, "This is a person I would trust in terms of conscience and capability with the Presidency." Can you?
Part of the strangeness of attacking 'Ivy League (liberals)'. Parents generally would very much love if their children went to an Ivy League school, or one on the same academic level with them. Then all of a sudden one guy hints that because this other guy performed brilliantly in school, he thinks you're stupid while he is 'just folks'...
Popular kids, particularly in High School, are supposedly the most emotionally facile. They are the ones who find it easy to adapt to the expectations of others very quickly, and bury whatever feelings they have. So you can be very smart or not so smart, and still be popular (ie: you can still go into politics), as long as your emotional life is relatively shallow.
Which stands to reason, I think. People like confidence and poise, and will mistake it for intelligence or at least competence readily enough. I remember being surprised when a particular classmate of mine was accepted to Yale and Harvard in our senior year. I had assumed he wasn't that bright. He never spoke up in class, never made himself of any notice to me in academics (I was in the top 5% myself), but he was very popular and social on a level that I was not. I had assumed he was dumb. A lot of the people he hung out with were heading off to community college. Not for a long time did I realize that the thing was, he was emotionally shallow, and though he was clever, I had found him to be less than interesting for that reason.
Which experience has informed my view of the Ivy League, and really the "top shelf" colleges across the board. One thing I've really picked up on, having now met dozens of people who attended these schools, is that most of them were also quite emotionally shallow. Competent, intelligent, poised, and empty. It reminds me of my father and his colleagues from when I was growing up- all Ivy Leaguers. Or my older sister, whose emotional age probably lags 15 years behind her actual age (also an Ivy Leaguer)
Emotional depth can make people unappealing. They can be mercurial and turbulent, and seem unconfident, or unsteady and unreliable. And i think it's the rare person that combines a great deal of confidence with a deep well of an emotional life.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have an allergy to "folksy" in presidents.
I agree. In one of the tributes to Steve Jobs it said "B students surround themselves with C students to make themselves look smart, A students surround themselves with A+ students." I want a president whose smarter than I am, but it seems that many Americans prefer a President who make them feel smart.
I know! It's so strange. When Obama was running we kept hearing the word "elitist" and the phrase "intelectual elitist". I remember finally reading an editorial where the writer said, "When did being smart and academic become a bad thing in this country?" and thinking, "I know! What on earth?"
Palin talking about real Americans and how smart people just don't know what the down to earth farmers know was a concept I'd only heard one other time. Mao's China in the 1950s.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ssssssshhhocker.
Palin was and is, first and foremost, a power hungry would-be demagogue. Her politics were just the sprinkles on the icing on the cake. A detail- not more.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Which experience has informed my view of the Ivy League, and really the "top shelf" colleges across the board. One thing I've really picked up on, having now met dozens of people who attended these schools, is that most of them were also quite emotionally shallow. Competent, intelligent, poised, and empty.
I suspect confirmation bias, as it does not agree with the various Ivy League grads I know.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It doesn't agree with all of the Ivy League grads I know either, just most. And I suppose I'd have to examine what I'm actually reacting to- the superficial conversations I have had with the small number of people I have met who came from an ivy league school, in which my usual silent reaction is: "really? But you're totally uninteresting and vapid." That could be jealousy, a learned over appreciation for the charisma and intelligence of ivy-leaguers, as represented in films and books, or likely some such combination of factors. I suppose people who attend these schools are also probably practiced at superficiality in a way I may not be- and the situation might be the converse, and I have just met condescending and smug Ivy Leaguers who didn't give me the chance to get to know them.
So yes, confirmation bias is likely. Although I don't know the implication- does that mean I see people as emotionally shallow, or I only remember the emotionally shallow ones? Or that my expectations of Ivy League grads are different than for other people, and affect my interactions with them, and so leave me with this impression? Difficult to say.
I must say, I'm rather glad not to be an Ivy League graduate, given the hype. I did go to a top 10 public school, but not one that people pause and let sink in when they announce it.
I haven't seen any research on this- it would be interesting to do a study of correlation between EQ-i and university attendance. I don't know enough about the study of affect and emotion to guess what the results might be. Could be interesting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But I think that sounding folksy is not simply having an accent or speaking a non standard dialect. Sarah Palin doesn't have a distinctive rural accent and yet sounds folksy. Jimmy Carter doesn't sound folksy to me even though he has a thicker southern drawl than Bush.
I definitely hear a distinct accent in Palin's speech. Reminds me of Minnesota, but then, I've never been to Alaska so *shrug*.
But your point is a good one, there is a different between the two. Edited for a typo
Everybody has an accent of some kind or another. Whether or not you find it distinctive is largely dependent on how much it differs from your own accent. Sarah Palin's accent is pretty typical Western North American.
Linguists consider variations in accents within the Western US and Canada to be very minor. There are differences between the way people speak in Sacramento, Seattle, Phoenix, Calgary, Denver, and Minneapolis, but those differences are a lot smaller (hence less distinctive) than the difference between people who live in Boston and those who live in Charleston. Because the Western American accent is the one most widely used in TV, radio and movies, the more distinctive regional accents in the rest of the North America are all drifting towards the Western North American accent.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Sarah Palin's accent is pretty typical Western North American.
As in Midwestern? I would disagree with that- it's atypical of anything in the Pacific Northwest at least, and the southwest as well. She's got a very discernable twang that is reminiscent of Minnesota, or Wisconsin.
Slate published an article claiming it as an actual Alaskan accent.
Whatever it is, it is not typical of the West outside of the far north, in my opinion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There were a couple of posts recently on The Monkey Cage about intellectual ability and Presidential success: here and here. They're riffing off a discussion on the Encyclopedia Brittanica blog about the subject, which is partly a reworking of this work by a UC-Davis Psychology professor. Upshot: academics' judgements of Presidential success correlate strongly with academics' judgements of Presidential intelligence. Whether this speaks to bias on the part of academics or true correlation isn't really addressed, although the author makes, I think, a good effort to proceed in as unbiased a manner as possible, given the underlying dataset.
Personally, I see the populist/elitist tension as being ever present in our National politics. America believes itself to be the land of opportunity, where with enough work anyone can become whatever they want. This means that "folksy" figures of modest means, like Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln, and Harry Truman are, to some degree, iconic examples of the American Dream. But part of the American ideal is also meritocratic, and so we admire men of genius like Jefferson, Wilson and Kennedy despite their relatively priveleged backgrounds.
Personally, I think both intelligence and "down-to-earth"-ness are valuable attributes for Presidential candidates. But more than either of those I value a strong moral sentiment and a principled belief in abstractions like virtue, honor, justice, and integrity.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
You know, I actually was recently at a large conference and we dined a couple of times with some of our legal affiliates. About half of the group was from Salt Lake City, and the other half was from the East Coast, primarily Philadelphia or Washington, DC.
I thought it was odd, but you could definitely hear a difference in the speech patterns between the two groups, but there wasn't one particular thing I could put my finger on.
Now, when you say that the Western Accent is more frequent in the media, I have to wonder if that was it....
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Palin talking about real Americans and how smart people just don't know what the down to earth farmers know was a concept I'd only heard one other time. Mao's China in the 1950s.
I'm not a fan of Palin, but I feel compelled to point out that Thomas Jefferson supposedly taught that horticulture was in some way central to the morality of the democratic experiment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well sure, but he also didn't want Americans directly choosing who the President would be, for starters. Other people would be chosen for that job.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She's got a very discernable twang that is reminiscent of Minnesota, or Wisconsin.
Speaking as a resident of Wisconsin, I need to ask you to retract that before this comes to blows. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Palin talking about real Americans and how smart people just don't know what the down to earth farmers know was a concept I'd only heard one other time. Mao's China in the 1950s.
I'm not a fan of Palin, but I feel compelled to point out that Thomas Jefferson supposedly taught that horticulture was in some way central to the morality of the democratic experiment.
He also thought we needed to have fairly regular revolutions so as to keep things fresh. I really think the man would have benefited from having a gun placed in his hand and then being sent to at least one major engagement.
This is a tangent, but also an accountant to manage is money. He certainly didn't know how to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:She's got a very discernable twang that is reminiscent of Minnesota, or Wisconsin.
Speaking as a resident of Wisconsin, I need to ask you to retract that before this comes to blows.
Reminiscent, not indicative. That's to my ears.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Palin talking about real Americans and how smart people just don't know what the down to earth farmers know was a concept I'd only heard one other time. Mao's China in the 1950s.
I'm not a fan of Palin, but I feel compelled to point out that Thomas Jefferson supposedly taught that horticulture was in some way central to the morality of the democratic experiment.
And he owned and took sexual advantage of slaves, while writing about the inalienable freedoms of all men. The man's words mean little without sensible interpretation, like, "this is good stuff," and "this on the other hand, is nonsense."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hey Rakeesh: Did you find an answer to what you were looking for in my post re: accents?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Palin talking about real Americans and how smart people just don't know what the down to earth farmers know was a concept I'd only heard one other time. Mao's China in the 1950s.
I'm not a fan of Palin, but I feel compelled to point out that Thomas Jefferson supposedly taught that horticulture was in some way central to the morality of the democratic experiment.
He also thought we needed to have fairly regular revolutions so as to keep things fresh. I really think the man would have benefited from having a gun placed in his hand and then being sent to at least one major engagement.
This is a tangent, but also an accountant to manage is money. He certainly didn't know how to.
You could consider Deng Xiaoping his accountant.
Ironically, I feel like the man was right about regular revolutions, just the timing was off and early. The party has become corrupt and a tool of the wealthy elites. Maybe it is time to have a revolution, balance out the wealth and maybe introduce democracy if we are feeling ambitious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:“I guess Republicans think that if the economy improves, it might help President Obama,” Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “So they root for the economy to fail.”
The evidence supporting the accustion is pretty compelling and growing every day. And to erase any doubt, Tea Party Nation has now called for small business to stop hiring people as long as Obama is President. Call for Small Business Strike
The entire point of a strike is to impose an economic penalty until your demands are met. By calling a strike against the country, the Tea Party has unambiguously declared that they are trying to damage the economy in order to advance their political agenda. This is shameful behavior.
Its only bad to make this kind of accusation if it isn't true. If it is true, or if you have solid reasons to believe its true, making this kind of accusation shows moral courage. Its about time Politicians stepped up to the challenge and started calling this kind of tactic what it is: economic terrorism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
If you want to continue this dialogue, maybe we should agree what we're talking about. The accusations made by Reid and Obama were that Congressional Republicans were blocking the Democrats' agenda not because they disagreed with it ideologically, or even for partisan reasons, but because they knew it would help the economy and preferred the economy to be harmed in order to improve their own electoral chances.
As incontrovertible proof of this hypothesis you cite a random blogger on the social networking site of a marginalized group that is loosely affiliated with the tea party movement. Someone whose opinions have essentially no impact on the actions of anyone, anywhere (other than those of us forced to discuss their views on internet fora).
If you're argument is that a few random conservatives are advocating symbolic actions that would hurt the economy in order to express dissatisfaction with Obama, well I can't argue. But it's a long way from that to the despicable assertions Obama and Reid are making.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The accusations made by Reid and Obama were that Congressional Republicans were blocking the Democrats' agenda not because they disagreed with it ideologically, or even for partisan reasons, but because they knew it would help the economy and preferred the economy to be harmed...
I wouldn't go that far. Rather, they knew that doing nothing would harm the economy, so they chose to ensure that nothing was done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Haha fraudulant claims are fraudulant. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, better that than fraudulent, I guess.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Senoj, You are wrong on all counts.
First, the accusations made by Reid and Obama was NOT "that Congressional Republicans were blocking the Democrats' agenda not because they disagreed with it ideologically, or even for partisan reasons, but because they knew it would help the economy and preferred the economy to be harmed.." The accusation is that Republicans are blocking legislation that would help the economy because they think improvement in the economy would hurt their party in the 2012 elections. In other words, they don't want the economy to improve FOR PARTISAN REASONS. The entire point Democrats are making are willing to let the economy suffer for another year and a half in order to improve their parties chances in the 2012 election.
Second, The link I gave is not the only evidence for this or even the primary evidence. The primary evidence right now is that republicans are opposing the Jobs bill without offering any alternative. The evidence for that this is the tactic of the Republican leaders are many and they go back to 2009. Its been quite obviously the republican strategy since 2009 when the republicans started blaming Obama and the democrats for our economic problems, despite the incontrovertible fact that the collapse happened while GW Bush was president. I don't have time to search through 3 years of new articles to show you every instance.
Third, The Tea Party Nation is not some "random blogger on a social networking cite". They are an influential group within the Tea Party movement. They organized the 2010 National Tea Party Convention.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
Are you enjoying this interaction? Cause I'm not. I'll answer the points you've raised in my next post, but I'm not really interested in going forward with this conversation unless the tenor and tone changes.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
1) Your definition of "partisan reasons" is different than mine, but do we agree that Obama and Reid were specifically speaking of Congressional Republicans? And that they're inferring intent (they want the economy to be harmed) from actions (blocking bills and what not)?
2) The reason I used the term "incontrovertible proof" is because you suggested the link would "erase any doubt." However, the evidence you linked to doesn't appear to me to have any relevance to the claims about Congressional Republicans being made by Reid and Obama (for more, see point 3 below).
The other evidence you put forward seems to me to be better explainable by other mechanisms, rather than assuming Republican leaders are deliberately sabotaging the US economy. I find it surprising that the immediate conclusion when the opposing party acts oppositionally is "they want the nation to fail (at least until they get into office)." I guess it's inevitable, particularly among hard-line ideologues, but I personally find the belief that opposition necessarily implies "desire to hurt America" offensive.
3) Melissa Brookstone (whoever she is) != Tea Party Nation (which hosts several bloggers, with no immediately apparent editorial oversight, on its website) != tea party movement != Republicans != Congressional Republicans. Would you feel I was justified in inferring the intent of Congressional Democrats based on a cherry-picked rant post on the blog of one of the OWS occupiers?
And to my use of the term "marginalized" to describe Tea Party Nation, their "national convention" attracted about 600 people, was condemned by significant tea party opinion leaders (like Erik Erickson), lost its co-sponsoring group due to TPN's organizational incompetence, and had several high profile speakers back out (like Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn). They're notorious as "the group that gave Sarah Palin $100,000 to show up" but, at least to my knowledge, are essentially irrelevant when it comes to setting the agenda of the more general tea party movement. Their "Ensuring Liberty" super PAC fizzled and now seems to be defunct, they haven't organized anything in over a year.
For more, see Dave Weigel's post and follow up post on TPN's leader, Judson Phillips, and his lack of influence within the tea party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not really interested in going forward with this conversation unless the tenor and tone changes.
Senoj, I do not appreciate the accusation that my tenor and tone are inappropriate. This is a classic example of ad hominem. If you think my points are flawed, respond to my points -- not my style. If you don't enjoy by debating style, no one is forcing you to interact with me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
My intent wasn't to belittle your arguments by pointing out that I didn't like your method of discussing them. It was to inform you that, if the general tenor and tone don't change I will indeed stop discussing this with you. I also clearly said I would address your points, which I did. Have a nice day.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:1) Your definition of "partisan reasons" is different than mine/
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "partisan reasons? If someones primary reason for opposing something is to promote the strength and power of their political party, I would can that a "partisan reason". What would call it?
quote:but do we agree that Obama and Reid were specifically speaking of Congressional Republicans?
Yes I agree. Do you think the comments of outspoken and influential members of the right wing are relevant to understanding the motives of Congressional Republican leaders?
quote:And that they're inferring intent (they want the economy to be harmed) from actions (blocking bills and what not)?
They are referring to intent but you are exaggerating their claims for rhetorical effect. What Harry Reid said was
quote:“I guess Republicans think that if the economy improves, it might help President Obama,” Reid said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “So they root for the economy to fail.”
That isn't equivalent to accusing Republicans of "wanting to harm the economy. It's equivalent to "unwilling to fix the economy." And it is absolutely not, as you claim, wanting to hurt the economy -- it is wanting to defeat President Obama at the expense of fixing the economy. That difference is not trivial.
You are doing exactly what some members of the left wing did when they said "Ron Paul says people who can't afford medical care should be killed." No he didn't. Recommending we should kill people or destroy the economy is not the same as recommending that we do nothing to help sick people or nothing to fix the economy. If you don't find that distinction meaningful, ask yourselves we should charge people who refuse to provide first aid with murder.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This is a classic example of ad hominem.
Is it really? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is not immediately connected to this particular accusation of ad hominem but, honestly, I have never really gotten why an accusation of ad hominem is always such an argument buster. Considering the source of an argument or statement is generally useful if information about the source is helpful in judging the reliability of the source. I think that we cry "ad hominem" too often in general and we should only use it when the negative information about the source is clearly irrelevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I think that we cry "ad hominem" too often in general
you are clearly strawmanning
*kicks 'strawman' into the quicklime pit alongside 'ad hominem'*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This is a classic example of ad hominem.
Is it really?
Of course it is. Its a pretty clear attempt to discredit my contribution to the discussion by criticizing my tone and tenor. The implication is "I would be justified in discounting The Rabbit's points because she sounds so mean and nasty", even though that is never directly stated.
In my experience, the ad hominem attack is most frequently used as a red herring rather than a direct rebuttal to a statement. The two go hand in hand.
[ October 21, 2011, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: My intent wasn't to belittle your arguments by pointing out that I didn't like your method of discussing them. It was to inform you that, if the general tenor and tone don't change I will indeed stop discussing this with you.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its a pretty clear attempt to discredit my contribution to the discussion by criticizing my tone and tenor.
Hmmm.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
An accusation that your tenor and tone are inappropriate is not an ad hominem any more so than it would be an ad hominem to tell me to stop swearing during a debate because it is rude and offensive. Senoj saying that your points are wrong or discredited because they are paired with your tenor and tone is an ad hominem. Senoj saying that your tenor and tone is creating an unwillingness to continue participating on his end is something that anyone has the right to say, without it automatically being an <insert formal fallacy name here>. There's no two ways about it; you're wrong.
This is one of the big reasons why, as time goes on, I agree the use of formal fallacy names as callouts in debates needs to be shot and left to die. They're used wrongly more often than they're actually used correctly and it's just getting to be a sophomoric holdback.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Senoj was saying "I don't want to talk to you because I think you're being rude," not "your argument isn't legitimate because you're being rude."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Senoj was saying "I don't want to talk to you because I think you're being rude," not "your argument isn't legitimate because you're being rude."
Up to the point when Senoj made that accusation, I thought we were having a polite discussion. Tone can be easy to mistake in an online forum. Since I had no idea why he was offended by my post, I took it as an attempt to divert attention from the argument and put me on the defensive.
I'm sure my response was due in large part to the context of the discussion. Senoj's outrage over the Democratic claims is the same sort of thing. Whether intentional or not, its a common rhetorical technique to ask "How could you accuse honorable men of such a thing?" It skips over the question of whether the accusations have any validity and puts the blame on the accuser.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is one of the big reasons why, as time goes on, I agree the use of formal fallacy names as callouts in debates needs to be shot and left to die. They're used wrongly more often than they're actually used correctly and it's just getting to be a sophomoric holdback.
Thats an appeal to reducto ad nauseum via etymology of I've *ever* seen one.
Orincoro: 1
Samp: 0.999999 repeating.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And he did it cleverly. Cain is simultaneously calling people lazy and blaming them for not getting a job (a common mantra in the right, though not necessarily the most common) and also blaming Obama.
It was also a nice moment to remind people that the GOP candidates are doing a fantastic job of pretending like Wall Street's role is in the past and blameless at present.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Washington Post factchecker gives Reid's accusations three Pinnochios. By their ratings scale, this means they find the statement displays "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." The article points out that several items of legislation Obama claimed were important for the economy (like trade agreements, patent reform and transportation funding) have passed in the past two months, with Republican support. It also calls bunk on the claim that Republicans previously supported portions of Obama's jobs bill which they now oppose.
The factchecker is reviewing Reid's watered down statement (made the day after the accusation I linked to earlier) that the GOP "won't do anything constructive*." The full quote:
quote:These programs have worked in the past. Republicans know they've worked in the past. But when you have a goal, your only goal is to follow your leader. And that leader, my friend Mitch McConnell, his goal is to defeat Obama. Of course they don't want to do anything that's constructive.
*Note: This accusation I don't find nearly as offensive as what he said the day before on the floor of the Senate. I see a significant difference between "rooting for the economy to fail" and "won't do anything constructive." The first is a baseless, classless slander and the second is a (depressing) recognition of the fundamental role of partisanship in politics. Neither formulation, however, is as egregious as Obama's assertion in the campaign mailer that the Republicans oppose him because <edit>their</edit> strategy is to "smother the economy."
[ October 21, 2011, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
In this thread, you've said there "can't be any question" that Republicans are trying to destroy the economy and that anyone who disagreed with you about the deck being stacked against poor people was "seriously deluded." You're frequently dismissive of others viewpoints, which I find rude. My comment about "tone and tenor" partly reflected that, partly the "crowing" (for lack of a better word) I felt you were (unjustifiedly) engaging in in the post where you linked to Melissa Brookstone's blog, but mostly to your single line "Senoj, you are wrong on all counts." If this had been a polite conversation, even a face to face conversation, I would have expected something along the lines of "I disagree with that characterization" or "that's not how I see it" or "I don't think your interpretation is fair." I know that "you're wrong" is an unofficial Hatrack welcome, but in this case (and in most cases I can think of) I feel it's dismissive and rude, a way of putting someone in their place, an attempt to bully someone around by asserting the dominance of your opinion by elevating it to the level of fact.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So Cain's "exemptions" plan for 9-9-9 involves declaring poor areas "Opportunity Zones" where minimum wage and building codes do not apply.
Good news, though! 9-9-9 is only a temporary plan to reduce the deficit! It would eventually be replaced by a 30% sales tax with no income or corporate taxes urhdhrur rhurduhr hrur durdur wur dur
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I know the minimum wage jobs I worked out of high school would of course have paid very little less than minimum wage in such a zone. Goodness, the prosperity that would trickle...upward!
Another way in which Republican business-friendliness acts against other of their own interests (not that this is unusual in politics, though geeze it's not uncommon in the GOP lately): firefighters. I sure know a firefighter would love to run into a burning building-that's incidentally more likely to catch fire in the first place-that's not built to codes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In this thread, you've said there "can't be any question" that Republicans are trying to destroy the economy and that anyone who disagreed with you about the deck being stacked against poor people was "seriously deluded." You're frequently dismissive of others viewpoints, which I find rude.
And I find it quite rude of you to take umbrage with my tone and tenor. In my world, it's normal for people to state their position with confidence.
As for the "seriously deluded" comment, both Tom and I gave a long list of established facts supporting the claim that the deck is stacked in favor of the rich. Neither you nor anyone else here has disputed those facts yet you ask for respect for an idea that is contrary to those facts. Why should politeness demand I show respect to a political view that is contrary to established facts?
As I said before, whether you are conscious of it or not, you are trying to undermine my arguments by attacking me rather than the arguments. I don't appreciate that. Its a rude and unethical way to argue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rabbit, Senoj had -- in my opinion -- a very valid complaint about your tone, which is coming off (in print, anyway) as very hostile. Complaining about that tone is perfectly kosher. Why would you insist that someone carry on a conversation with someone who's verbally abusing them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As I said before, whether you are conscious of it or not, you are trying to undermine my arguments by attacking me rather than the arguments. I don't appreciate that. Its a rude and unethical way to argue.
Senoj is conscious of what he's doing, has clarified to that extent, and is not trying to do this. There's nothing "unethical" about the way senoj is arguing. Which is a good thing, because if it were true it would render your actions unethical too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So Cain's "exemptions" plan for 9-9-9 involves declaring poor areas "Opportunity Zones" where minimum wage and building codes do not apply.
Good news, though! 9-9-9 is only a temporary plan to reduce the deficit! It would eventually be replaced by a 30% sales tax with no income or corporate taxes urhdhrur rhurduhr hrur durdur wur dur
None of their tax plans make any sense at all. Perry has some bizarre option 20% flat tax that still includes three of the biggest exemptions out there. Most higher income earners would take it in a heart beat because the biggest deductions are still around and it drops their rate more than 10 points. For all low income earners, it would be a tax hike.
Cain's 9-9-9 is horribly regressive, and he's either lying or wrong about how it would work out.
Romney is all over the place. No flat tax, but now that he sees people might LIKE the flat tax, he's sort of hedging his bets and signal some willingness to approach the idea, but with so many caveats as to make it useless.
None of the other candidates are even bothering because they aren't even within 10 points and don't have to.
It's a mess. Most of them are proposing drastically cutting revenue, big tax breaks for the wealthy, most of them proposing the poor pay THEIR "fair share" because "everyone needs to have skin in the game, with an extreme unlikelihood that any of this will help the economy in a way that makes up for the revenue gap. All while they pledge not to cut the military (Romney has proposed a massive, prohibitively expensive new shipbuilding program). One can only surmise then, that despite Congressional protestations, they plan to make massive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, despite the big hullaballoo caused when Perry and Romney tussled over Social Security. We all remember how Bush's reform efforts went. In addition to that, they'll have to eliminate the entire federal government.
And that STILL won't balance the budget.
Obama has already backed tax reform that lowers rates and gets rid of most deductions, with a tiered, lower tax rate scheme. If this comes down to a debate over taxes in some way, which I think it will, Obama is going to skewer whichever GOP contender comes to the fore.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think most of the proposed tax plans are ones that they can spin reasonably well to their base, sound good as sound bites, can't really be evaluated without making big assumptions letting them say the assumptions are just wrong, and most importantly, are totally infeasible to implement given the current political climate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think most of the proposed tax plans are ones that they can spin reasonably well to their base, sound good as sound bites, can't really be evaluated without making big assumptions letting them say the assumptions are just wrong, and most importantly, are totally infeasible to implement given the current political climate.
Except Romney's 59 point plan, which I don't anyone pretends to fully understand, but maybe that's the point as well. He can say it means whatever he wants.
The problem for them is that the simplicity makes it pretty easy to attack them too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think most of the proposed tax plans are ones that they can spin reasonably well to their base, sound good as sound bites, can't really be evaluated without making big assumptions letting them say the assumptions are just wrong, and most importantly, are totally infeasible to implement given the current political climate.
The base of conservative upper middle class white voters is not big enough to carry the electorate. And these above mentioned tax schemes would sell to *no one* else, as far as I can see. Once again, republicans appeal to a dwindling base they seem intent on shrinking even more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:The base of conservative upper middle class white voters is not big enough to carry the electorate. And these above mentioned tax schemes would sell to *no one* else, as far as I can see. Once again, republicans appeal to a dwindling base they seem intent on shrinking even more.
These sorts of plans are all very popular with poor conservative voters. Whether you think they should be or not, they are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've seen polls that say even people in the Tea Party support raising taxes on the wealthy, I think I recall seeing a poll that a majority of Tea Partiers support such a measure.
I'm not sure if the public really knows what it wants, or who is actually espousing what it claims it wants.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I just...what the...I don't even...oh whatever. Joe The Plumber is running for Congress!?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've seen polls that say even people in the Tea Party support raising taxes on the wealthy, I think I recall seeing a poll that a majority of Tea Partiers support such a measure.
This CBS/NYT poll probably indicates that's not the case (although I'm not disputing there may have been a poll in the past that painted such a picture).
According to the poll, Republicans in general oppose raising taxes on millionaires 38-59. It therefore seems unlikely that people who identify with or even sympathize with the Tea Party would, on average, be in favor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The problem Orincoro is that the Conservatives don't have to appeal to their base, but instead have successfully constructed a decades long propaganda campaign of divide and conquer of turning individuals against their class interests.
The Koch Brothers, a poor blackman and a poor white guy sit around a large cake, divided into 10 slices, the Koch brothers take 9 slices, when the black guy goes to take the last slice the Koch brothers scream at the white dude "DONT LET THAT BLACK MAN TAKE YOUR SLICE!"
Misdirecting the narrative to focus on the zero sum game of the remaining scraps of wealth that the rich deigned to leave to the poors.
I once had a conversation with a women on irc who kept saying things like "I don't hate rich people, I don't think its fair to tax them, why do you have to hate rich people?" I also had every indication she was at most lower middle class. And to further illustrate the success of right wing misinformation campaigns when I described Keysnian Theory to her she likened it to "Communism".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I just...what the...I don't even...oh whatever. Joe The Plumber is running for Congress!?
He's got essentially no chance of winning. In 2010, the incumbent Democrat "only" won by 18 points; Barack Obama took the district by 34 points in 2008. And the district has since been gerrymandered (by Republicans) to be even more heavily biased towards Democrats.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm guessing to make all the other districts more republican?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm guessing to make all the other districts more republican?
Exactly.
A good gerrymander makes a few extremely high density districts for your political opponents (such as the one Joe the Plumber is running in), and many moderately high density districts for yourself. The preference seems to be to have as many districts as possible be between 55-60% biased toward your political party, pushing all your opponents into a few districts that are biased as near to 100% as possible.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I just...what the...I don't even...oh whatever. Joe The Plumber is running for Congress!?
I don't know what to say. Part of me just absolutely loves it. I mean it's the epitome of a presidential campaign ad; it says absolutely NOTHING about the candidate or his policies. Maybe what I like so much about it is that it's absolutely unapologetic about it. It's like they knew they weren't saying anything, but wanted to be as badass as possible about it.
Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
The song, by the way, is I Am America by Krista Branch. I normally don't care for patriotic songs, but it's actually not bad, and it's catchy. Personally I think Cain should have gone with this song, but it wasn't a bad second choice.
When you have limited funds and you're trying to raise your name recognition, this ad is absolutely brilliant. The pundits who are saying it was a disaster are way off, and I don't think they really understand how the internet works.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Dude. He's going to put the "United" back in the United States of America. What more could you want?
I've hated just being "The States of America" ever since Obama got elected, so I fully support this new proposal, even though I know realistically he could never ram it through such a liberal Senate.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
If he becomes President, does every registered voter get a free pizza?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's what I'm counting on.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Herman Cain's smile/laugh was really creepy.
This being the first presidential election I can actually vote in, I know who's smile I'm not voting for.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: If he becomes President, does every registered voter get a free pizza?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's what I'm counting on.
Bah. Wouldn't help those of us who keep kosher, since you know the free pizzas definitely won't be kosher.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
He's going to put the United back in the United States of America, Rivka, and you're worried about whether or not your free pizza will be kosher???? Get your priorities straight!
Besides, he fully supports Israel, so it should go without saying that he will have a kosher option for Free Pizza Inauguration Day.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: he fully supports Israel
The reasons why certain groups of Christians and political conservatives (in this case, some from column A and some from column B) support Israel have amazingly little to do with respecting the observance of Orthodox Jews.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Impossible! I don't want to believe it, so I won't.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:The base of conservative upper middle class white voters is not big enough to carry the electorate. And these above mentioned tax schemes would sell to *no one* else, as far as I can see. Once again, republicans appeal to a dwindling base they seem intent on shrinking even more.
These sorts of plans are all very popular with poor conservative voters. Whether you think they should be or not, they are.
They're popular because they're simple, and they sound "common sense." It takes exactly 2 seconds for them to become unpopular when it is pointed out that it will raise effective tax rates on poor conservatives, in many cases doubling existing rates, or imposing new taxes on people who don't currently pay income tax at all.
Then Cain will mollify these voters by promising a list of exemptions and workarounds that will complicate the "simple" idea and make it more palatable, and then he will lose the support of rich conservatives who want to shift the tax burden to the poor, because they know that the inevitable counter-balance to these exemptions is raising their tax burdens in some way.
And what will happen is the poor will get the exemptions and the rich will work out ways of avoiding the burden and the middle class, with income enough to pay their taxes but too few connections to shelter a large proportion of their income from taxes will pick up the bill. Just like they already do.
The point is, the current system is in place because it's the one most politically palatable to the largest number of people. Radical and regressive schemes never get very far because the poor get riled about them, the rich don't get any more votes than anyone else, and the middle class is busy working and trying to pay the mortgage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
Oh, you mean Sam the non-plumber. Gotcha.
I mean... not a *licensed* plumber. And technically misrepresented himself as a potential small business owner, and said in 2009 about running for congress that he "talked to God about that and He was like, 'No'".
So basically he a non-plumber commercial actor and motivation speaker who has direct verbal communication with god, but doesn't take his advice.
I'd say I'm sure he's a nice person, but to be honest, every quote I've ever read from him makes him sound like an asshole.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
For me it has to be the gratuitous smoke he lit up. It's so bad ass, and it brings me back to the good old days when liberals hadn't come along and ruined cigarettes, with their talk of "cancer" and "impressionable youths".
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I can't get to it from work, so I can't link it right now, but Colbert's parodies of the commercial, which aired on Tuesday's show, are hilarious.
I found the slow smile pretty creepy, by the way. There was an "I have you by the balls" quality to it, from my perspective, that was...unsettling.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dan, you're on a roll Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Impossible! I don't want to believe it, so I won't.
We're pretty sure you're NOT my ex, right?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I found the entire commercial really creepy, from the racing heart beat music at the start to the smile at the end. Just thinking about it gives me the willies.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Impossible! I don't want to believe it, so I won't.
We're pretty sure you're NOT my ex, right?
You know, I've dated so many Orthodox Jewish girls I can't even be sure. Something about the fact that they'd actually never date me just makes them irresistible!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nevermind. Even my ex (-spouse, btw) isn't that twisted.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hmm, you know, that may have come out a little creepier than I intended. Or... a lot creepier. Oops. Time to rip my tongue off of my cheek for a moment. Augh, that smarts!
My apologies if I offended you or anyone else. Wasn't my intent, I promise.
PS: Bok, thank you! I did it just for you (and/or anyone else who was amused) Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Twisted, but not unusual.
Lots of people are programmed to want what they can't have. Perhaps some more than others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When you have limited funds and you're trying to raise your name recognition, this ad is absolutely brilliant. The pundits who are saying it was a disaster are way off, and I don't think they really understand how the internet works.
The people who are saying it's a disaster understand that usually (and definitely politically) "all popularity is good popularity" is about as far from the truth as you can manage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
For me it has to be the gratuitous smoke he lit up. It's so bad ass, and it brings me back to the good old days when liberals hadn't come along and ruined cigarettes, with their talk of "cancer" and "impressionable youths".
I don't get the cigarette part... what was the point of that??
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But this is neutral popularity.
Perry has only been getting bad press lately because he's tripping all over himself, while Cain has been on the rise for various unknown reasons apparently centered around his tax plan. I recognize that not all news is good news, but there's simply nothing to this ad at all except it being just odd enough to go viral but not whacky enough to turn people immediately off.
This recent ad doesn't really do anything in particular except get people to pass it around and raise name awareness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
For me it has to be the gratuitous smoke he lit up. It's so bad ass, and it brings me back to the good old days when liberals hadn't come along and ruined cigarettes, with their talk of "cancer" and "impressionable youths".
I don't get the cigarette part... what was the point of that??
There isn't a point to it, that's the beauty of it!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It was a subtle nod to a policy of weakning the EPA. We're all going to be able to smoke wherever the hell we want now!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
For me it has to be the gratuitous smoke he lit up. It's so bad ass, and it brings me back to the good old days when liberals hadn't come along and ruined cigarettes, with their talk of "cancer" and "impressionable youths".
I don't get the cigarette part... what was the point of that??
There isn't a point to it, that's the beauty of it!
I feel like I've heard that somewhere before...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: My apologies if I offended you or anyone else.
Not at all. I was amused.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Other than the song, my favorite part was the slow smile at the end. Man that was funny.
For me it has to be the gratuitous smoke he lit up. It's so bad ass, and it brings me back to the good old days when liberals hadn't come along and ruined cigarettes, with their talk of "cancer" and "impressionable youths".
I don't get the cigarette part... what was the point of that??
There isn't a point to it, that's the beauty of it!
I feel like I've heard that somewhere before...
Nope, I just made that up alllll by myself.
Blackblade -
Well, not anything we want. Just the things we don't classify as satan's devil weed!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: My apologies if I offended you or anyone else.
Not at all. I was amused.
Oh good! Your deadpan was too dead(panny?) for me, I actually got concerned for a moment there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I knew I should have included a ! I debated it, actually.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No it's better this way. I was pretty much going to keep being "in character" until something like that happened, and it was getting exhausting!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: I said "wherever" we want. Whatever we want was not discussed in the video, at least the commentary does not extend beyond tobacco. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I think you're giving the poor conservative voter WAY too much credit.
I live in an area surrounded by farms that only survive because of government subsidies. These VERY SAME farmers write to our local paper every week complaining about Gov'ment Spendin'.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:The base of conservative upper middle class white voters is not big enough to carry the electorate. And these above mentioned tax schemes would sell to *no one* else, as far as I can see. Once again, republicans appeal to a dwindling base they seem intent on shrinking even more.
These sorts of plans are all very popular with poor conservative voters. Whether you think they should be or not, they are.
They're popular because they're simple, and they sound "common sense." It takes exactly 2 seconds for them to become unpopular when it is pointed out that it will raise effective tax rates on poor conservatives, in many cases doubling existing rates, or imposing new taxes on people who don't currently pay income tax at all.
Then Cain will mollify these voters by promising a list of exemptions and workarounds that will complicate the "simple" idea and make it more palatable, and then he will lose the support of rich conservatives who want to shift the tax burden to the poor, because they know that the inevitable counter-balance to these exemptions is raising their tax burdens in some way.
And what will happen is the poor will get the exemptions and the rich will work out ways of avoiding the burden and the middle class, with income enough to pay their taxes but too few connections to shelter a large proportion of their income from taxes will pick up the bill. Just like they already do.
The point is, the current system is in place because it's the one most politically palatable to the largest number of people. Radical and regressive schemes never get very far because the poor get riled about them, the rich don't get any more votes than anyone else, and the middle class is busy working and trying to pay the mortgage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I think you're giving the poor conservative voter WAY too much credit.
I live in an area surrounded by farms that only survive because of government subsidies. These VERY SAME farmers write to our local paper every week complaining about Gov'ment Spendin'.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:The base of conservative upper middle class white voters is not big enough to carry the electorate. And these above mentioned tax schemes would sell to *no one* else, as far as I can see. Once again, republicans appeal to a dwindling base they seem intent on shrinking even more.
These sorts of plans are all very popular with poor conservative voters. Whether you think they should be or not, they are.
They're popular because they're simple, and they sound "common sense." It takes exactly 2 seconds for them to become unpopular when it is pointed out that it will raise effective tax rates on poor conservatives, in many cases doubling existing rates, or imposing new taxes on people who don't currently pay income tax at all.
Then Cain will mollify these voters by promising a list of exemptions and workarounds that will complicate the "simple" idea and make it more palatable, and then he will lose the support of rich conservatives who want to shift the tax burden to the poor, because they know that the inevitable counter-balance to these exemptions is raising their tax burdens in some way.
And what will happen is the poor will get the exemptions and the rich will work out ways of avoiding the burden and the middle class, with income enough to pay their taxes but too few connections to shelter a large proportion of their income from taxes will pick up the bill. Just like they already do.
The point is, the current system is in place because it's the one most politically palatable to the largest number of people. Radical and regressive schemes never get very far because the poor get riled about them, the rich don't get any more votes than anyone else, and the middle class is busy working and trying to pay the mortgage.
I'm not giving them much credit. I'm not saying they would comprehend this process, just that their reactions are predictable enough to ensure a particular outcome, regardless of what their politics are. The subsidies are a good example- they complain about gov'm't spending, but old complain with equally full voice about ending subsidies, and would not recognize the irony. They are not required to recognize it- it simply is.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But but but... I'm poor, and I'm a conservative voter! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I doubt you are poor in the sense that i am invoking the term: undereducated, living in an underdeveloped area, with limited opportunity for economic mobility.
And anyway, it's not exactly the "conservative voter," is it? It's just the type of voter who simultaneously depends upon and actively defends government subsidies, and can also be convinced that he would be better off living under a government which *does not provide* such subsidies. In a word, stupid.
The weird thing is when people say that liberals = poor urban minorities who are only voting in their own economic best interests, when in fact basically *everyone* who benefits from government spending will fight to defend that benefit. The really interesting thing to me is how the Republicans convince poor people to vote against "big government," as a concept, even when that means economic ruin for them personally.
And can we wonder why the Republicans never actually pursue their campaign against big government when they are actually in power? If they did, they would alienate the people who would lose their benefits. Better to only try and interfere with and damage the mechanisms of government from the outside, so that they're never actually responsible for taking anything away, just *stopping* things from happening. And when they're in power? Spend a lot of money, and don't worry about it- the Democrats will come back in and make the unpopular decisions about paying for those debts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah that sure is disappointing, I'll grant you. I don't totally agree with the way you're characterizing the situation on the whole, but it's absolutely true that a significant majority of Republicans only pay lip service to the small government ideals they espouse. It's why a lot of people like me vote Libertarian... at least then they don't feel like the guy they put in office screwed them (... since they didn't put anyone in office.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hah, well that's one way to go. I'm not one who thinks that's a Republican conspiracy or anything, just a natural end to espousing a policy that sounds much better than it actually is. "Small government" sounds fantastic, but involves too many and wholly too large compromises for anyone to actually pursue it with a full heart. So if you're a libertarian, you won't be elected. And if you're a Republican, you can get elected, as long as you don't actually do half of what you promise you're going to do. That's just ideological corruption 101. Ideology that can get you elected- but that you could never actually follow.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I actually think the idea of "smaller government" makes sense in some places. I'm a pretty centrist voter in that I've voted for both parties at different parts of time.
I mean, I voted for Bush because I agreed with him on some pertinent points. I actually even voted for Perry at one point in time, though that was mostly because the Democrat he was running against was pretty much even more sleezy. I tend to think that we need to be more conservative with our government spending - but I also don't believe that allowing a continually widening wealth divide in our country is healthy.
The thing is, right now, I feel like the conservative party has all run the way of super rich guys tittering behind their hands, idiots who are taking the government check while claiming they don't want the government to write the check, especially because if the government writes the check it will mean they are also allowed to be as violent and bigotted as they want and run off all the Blacks, gays, and hispanics.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And if you're a Republican, you can get elected, as long as you don't actually do half of what you promise you're going to do. That's just ideological corruption 101. Ideology that can get you elected- but that you could never actually follow.
Sounds like Obama to me. Just sayin'.
As for your "voting against their interests" argument, it sounds a lot like Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas." You might be interested in the complementary study "What's the Matter with Connecticut" by Andrew Gelman, who's a Professor of PolySci at Columbia. This line of research eventually led Gelman to write the book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do, which I'd highly recommend. It debunks lots of popular myths about people's voting habits and offers one of the best analyses of the subject that I've seen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sounds like Obama to me. Just sayin'.
Sounds very much like Obama to me as well, although I think Obama has at least tried to keep many of his promises so it's not really fair to accuse him of "bait and switch".
To be fair to all politicians, we need to remember that no elected official has much power individually. My father was a representative in the state legislature for about a decade. At one point I asked him "Why don't you do X?" and his response was "Because I have to get 35 other members of the legislature to agree."
Sometimes we forget that we don't elect dictators, we elect people to positions in a democratic government. As long as that's true, we have to accept that politicians can't actually keep any promise that goes beyond "I will work for X".
I also think Americans view "consistency" as too great a virtue. My father recently told me that when he was in the state legislature, there was a group that asked all the legislators to sign a vow never to raise taxes. He told them, "If you want someone who will decide their vote before knowing all the relevant facts and details, I'm not your man." Changing your position as you learn more about the relevant facts is not the same a vacillating. I'm automatically suspicious of anyone whose position on issues hasn't changed in decades.
[ October 28, 2011, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Changing your position as you learn more about the relevant facts is not the same a vacillating. I'm automatically suspicious of anyone whose position on issues hasn't changed in decades.
Despite having said that, it does concern me when politicians change position with no apparent reason except to please the electorate. Its something of a fine line to walk because politicians should be listening to their constituency but they also need to have enough conviction to not be blown about by every popular wind.
My biggest concern with Romney is that I have no idea what he actually stands for. His political position were fairly liberal when he was running for office in a liberal state, but have shifted considerably to the right when he needed to court the conservative vote. I can't tell whether he has any real political goals besides getting elected. He seems to be an extremely competent manager but that isn't the only or even primary trait I want in a President.
[ October 28, 2011, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sounds very much like Obama to me as well, although I think Obama has at least tried to keep many of his promises so it's not really fair to accuse him of "bait and switch".
Doesn't sound THAT much like Obama. He's actually done quite a bit, and of the things he didn't get done, he's TRIED to do most of the rest. I'm betting less than half of his major campaign promises totally fell by the wayside and were never even addressed.
I have my bones to pick with him as much as anyone, but Congress has been the major stumbling block.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Other than his goofy Nirvana joke a couple debates ago, he's been by far the funniest candidate. I wish he'd unleashed that earlier, might have won more attention earlier on.
Supposedly his daughters told him to be himself and himself is a funny sarcastic guy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And if you're a Republican, you can get elected, as long as you don't actually do half of what you promise you're going to do. That's just ideological corruption 101. Ideology that can get you elected- but that you could never actually follow.
Sounds like Obama to me. Just sayin'.
Campaigning on something you may not be *able* to accomplish is one thing. Campaigning on something you would not actually choose to do, given the opportunity to do it, is quite another. That's more than a matter of degree. For instance, I do think Obama *wants* and wanted a single-payer NHS. He knew he would not get it, but he did campaign on reform based on that goal (more or less). However, I think that there are certain ideas kicking around the GOP candidates that they are campaigning on, but would *not* choose to do if elected. For instance, shrink the size of government, repeal the Health Care law of 2009, Balance the federal budget, and grant greater autonomy to states and districts in education.
I base that on the fact that Bush was elected with these as campaign issues, and he did not even *attempt* to complete them, with the exception of some seriously half assed legislation regarding Medicare. In every other regard, he and the GOP majorities in congress expanded government size and spending, made no attempt to address the federal deficit (choosing to cut taxes instead), and produced the travesty that is NCLB. These were not compromise positions between liberals and his stated goals. They completey ignored his stated goals.
So based in that rather poor showing for bush and the GOP for nearly 8 years, I think there is some justice n saying the GOP does not seem to use positions of power to accomplish effective and cohesive legislation, but rather abandons most ideological principles until they are once again in the minority. It suggests to me that the GOP's favored ideologies are fundamentally incompatible with governing. They cannot be, or at least do not, drive actual policy decisions and active legislation- better serving as disruptions to policy making and legislation.
Everything Obama has done so far, and trust me, I am far from satisfied with much of it, has been movement toward his campaign platform. The issue where I think you can draw *some* valid equivalence is on the tax issue. He has been unaccountably cowardly in that regard, even if I feel he hasn't actually gone *against* his word on it.
So while you could say the same about Obama, you would be far less right, I think. Not all rats smell the same.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Everything Obama has done so far, and trust me, I am far from satisfied with much of it, has been movement toward his campaign platform.
But that's obviously not true. Lobbyists, transparency, reigning in presidential abuses of power. These are all things that he campaigned on that he has shown no interest in following through with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I wasn't referring to what didn't get done. And I don't blame first him for those lapses
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Crossposted from another thread I started, but it is relevant here:
Not only are they not happy with Obama's reform, many of them want to get rid of student loans all together and let the private sector take over.
As someone who has both private and federal student loans, I'll tell you right now that anyone who calls for total privatization will get me off my ass and out the door to start a rally against them. Every single friend of mine in college probably wouldn't have bothered with it if we would have had to pay for all of it on private loan rates, it would have been like taking out thirty grand on a credit card. The rates are terrible. Actually, my one credit card has a LOWER rate than what's on one of my private loans.
I sort of see the complaint that it enables universities to hike tuition, and don't get me wrong, that pisses me off more than anything. But refusing student loans just punishes the students, not the universities. It's easy to see why we're caught in the middle when higher education is increasingly necessary but it's all about dollars. But while I might appreciate the principle of standing up to universities, I'm not a fan of playing around with the lives of millions of students just to make a point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In Canada, I don't think Universities can set rates, but its up to the provinces I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know Michigan has imposed funding penalties on state universities that raise the rates over a certain amount, but it's still doing little to stem the rise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems to me that it might eventually punish the universities somewhat-if you make it harder (costlier) to get a college education, economics suggests fewer people will, meaning less attendance for universities-but it's 'punish the universities through the students'.
I don't see how on Earth anyone can look at the world, and the USA, and our relationship with the world, and go on to say, "We need to make it harder to get an education." Well, I do see-it ties in with that whole 'removing public anything is more efficient' angle-but that seems to take a whole lot of buying into the initial argument than anything else.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There has to be a more direct and less punishing to students way of forcing universities, at least, forcing public universities, to reign in costs. Private universities can do whatever they want.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The way you force universities to rein in costs is to make students unable to afford college. Seriously. That's just about the only way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm not specifically saying I think that making it harder to get a college education is a good thing... however, I do think that the way we have emphasized that everyone should get a college degree (and therefore likely saddled with lots of debt) rather than, say, go to a trade school, isn't really a great thing for the country.
Has everyone seen Mike Rowe's TED Talk? He touches on this a bit. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if a few more people chose to learn a skilled trade instead of going to a 4 year university. And I don't think that forgoing a university education is actually all that harmful.
PS: This is tangential, something that occurred to me reading some of your posts. I'm not really addressing the student loan link, in case it wasn't obvious.
[ October 30, 2011, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The way you force universities to rein in costs is to make students unable to afford college. Seriously. That's just about the only way.
Yeah, but see, that would preclude the real purpose of privatizing student loans in the first place, and raising university tuition at the same time.
This way, the baby boomers and echo boomers get to treat the youth of today like a kind of piggy bank. You raise rates and saddle students with plenty of loans. The money flows from the bank to the university, into their pension programs and their administrator salaries, and their infrastructure (and ultimately *back* to the same bank), and then the students spend the rest of their lives paying off a volume of debt the people who are benefiting from it never faced in their lives. Not much different from the housing bubble, actually.
The baby boomers were the first generation to figure out you could essentially borrow from your own children before they even had any money to lend you.
Not that I think most people are even aware of the pattern. It's this kind of thing that has kept me till the age of nearly 27 without ever having had a credit card. (To be fair, I do have a cash rewards card with a low limit for emergency flex money- the actual purpose of a credit card).
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The way you force universities to rein in costs is to make students unable to afford college. Seriously. That's just about the only way.
I disagree. Universities also make alot of money through research and sports, and that is how they get alot of prestige. If you began penalizing them in those areas for increases in student costs, I bet many of them could reign in costs.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
They aren't ENTIRELY wrong on this. The plan Obama has will basically make it education cost meaningless after a certain threshold. If everyone will, in the end, pay the same amount for college, why would a future social worker choose a state school over an IVY League?
The only way you could induce them to do so would be to place even more severe restrictions on the amount of federally backed loans a student could take out, but then you end up facing the same problem as getting rid of federal loans entirely. As tuition explodes, everyone will either have to eventually take out private loans or go without education.
And, quite frankly, Obama doing this WITHOUT going through congress is a blatant abuse of power. I think it's absolutely foolish for him to do this in his first term.
Also, I think having all the loans held by the Federal Government is unwise - and not just because it's causing my own employer some strife. The FELP program had pretty good controls in it to make sure that federally backed student loans stayed tied to market rates. Sure, sometimes the federal government paid a subsidy to the loan holders, but in the last few years, the loan holders were actually paying subsidy BACK to the federal government! Laws that surrounding interest rates protected students from anything two terrible and provided students with alot of borrower benefits. While there were some problems with it, it was a fairly solid program.
The new "all direct federal loan" program isn't so great. For one thing, it allows our president to do this kind of forgiveness program WITHOUT going through congress. This is a double edged sword, because the exact same power could essentially let the next president to do the exact opposite! That could make student borrowing costs very unstable! Also, now the government has to hold the debt on the student loans directly, which isn't exactly a good thing for our "debt ceiling". Plus, they really don't know what they're doing trying to administer their program. I've gotten 3 different notices from them in 1 week about my account, all with totally different information on it! So, I do think that we've gone quite a bit too far in the direction of federal control over student loans, and a BIT more private enterprise involvement wouldn't be a bad idea.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Crossposted from another thread I started, but it is relevant here:
Not only are they not happy with Obama's reform, many of them want to get rid of student loans all together and let the private sector take over.
As someone who has both private and federal student loans, I'll tell you right now that anyone who calls for total privatization will get me off my ass and out the door to start a rally against them. Every single friend of mine in college probably wouldn't have bothered with it if we would have had to pay for all of it on private loan rates, it would have been like taking out thirty grand on a credit card. The rates are terrible. Actually, my one credit card has a LOWER rate than what's on one of my private loans.
I sort of see the complaint that it enables universities to hike tuition, and don't get me wrong, that pisses me off more than anything. But refusing student loans just punishes the students, not the universities. It's easy to see why we're caught in the middle when higher education is increasingly necessary but it's all about dollars. But while I might appreciate the principle of standing up to universities, I'm not a fan of playing around with the lives of millions of students just to make a point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The way you force universities to rein in costs is to make students unable to afford college. Seriously. That's just about the only way.
State universities are controlled by the state. Why can't they simply pass a law?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you going to force the professors to work without raises? I ask this as someone who lives in Wisconsin, where the professors are being forced to live without raises -- but not to save students money.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Canadian provinces do sometimes go through tuition freezes. I couldn't tell you why they start or stop in particular provinces, but they did save me some money.
quote:Currently, the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland have tuition fee freezes in place. The provinces of British Columbia and Ontario have previously had tuition fee freezes.
Practically speaking, I don't think the differences between the two systems have been enough to solve the problem, merely enough to severely slow it down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are you going to force the professors to work without raises? I ask this as someone who lives in Wisconsin, where the professors are being forced to live without raises -- but not to save students money.
Why would you have to?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: They aren't ENTIRELY wrong on this. The plan Obama has will basically make it education cost meaningless after a certain threshold. If everyone will, in the end, pay the same amount for college, why would a future social worker choose a state school over an IVY League?
The only way you could induce them to do so would be to place even more severe restrictions on the amount of federally backed loans a student could take out, but then you end up facing the same problem as getting rid of federal loans entirely. As tuition explodes, everyone will either have to eventually take out private loans or go without education.
And, quite frankly, Obama doing this WITHOUT going through congress is a blatant abuse of power. I think it's absolutely foolish for him to do this in his first term.
Also, I think having all the loans held by the Federal Government is unwise - and not just because it's causing my own employer some strife. The FELP program had pretty good controls in it to make sure that federally backed student loans stayed tied to market rates. Sure, sometimes the federal government paid a subsidy to the loan holders, but in the last few years, the loan holders were actually paying subsidy BACK to the federal government! Laws that surrounding interest rates protected students from anything two terrible and provided students with alot of borrower benefits. While there were some problems with it, it was a fairly solid program.
The new "all direct federal loan" program isn't so great. For one thing, it allows our president to do this kind of forgiveness program WITHOUT going through congress. This is a double edged sword, because the exact same power could essentially let the next president to do the exact opposite! That could make student borrowing costs very unstable! Also, now the government has to hold the debt on the student loans directly, which isn't exactly a good thing for our "debt ceiling". Plus, they really don't know what they're doing trying to administer their program. I've gotten 3 different notices from them in 1 week about my account, all with totally different information on it! So, I do think that we've gone quite a bit too far in the direction of federal control over student loans, and a BIT more private enterprise involvement wouldn't be a bad idea.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Crossposted from another thread I started, but it is relevant here:
Not only are they not happy with Obama's reform, many of them want to get rid of student loans all together and let the private sector take over.
As someone who has both private and federal student loans, I'll tell you right now that anyone who calls for total privatization will get me off my ass and out the door to start a rally against them. Every single friend of mine in college probably wouldn't have bothered with it if we would have had to pay for all of it on private loan rates, it would have been like taking out thirty grand on a credit card. The rates are terrible. Actually, my one credit card has a LOWER rate than what's on one of my private loans.
I sort of see the complaint that it enables universities to hike tuition, and don't get me wrong, that pisses me off more than anything. But refusing student loans just punishes the students, not the universities. It's easy to see why we're caught in the middle when higher education is increasingly necessary but it's all about dollars. But while I might appreciate the principle of standing up to universities, I'm not a fan of playing around with the lives of millions of students just to make a point.
I'm not convinced this is a blatant abuse of executive authority. The department of education is a part of the executive branch. The changes President Obama has proposed deal only with federal loans. I could be wrong, but I think that federal student loans and federally backed student loans go through the department of education. If this is the case, so long as there aren't any particularly new ordinances being put into place, I think it's within the rights of the president to modify existing policy in the way he is. (If I'm wrong that the maintenance of federal student loans isn't a part of the bureaucracy, then I retract my position entirely) The 20 year forgiveness isn't a new policy, it's a change to the loan forgiveness plan already there. Same with the loan payment to 10% of income cap. The argument that the president doing this makes the loan system unstable has some merit. But I don't think that's a problem unique to the presidency. Every two years congress could, theoretically, pass through super majority changes to the loan program. If President Obama proposed new regulation on loans--particularly on private loans--then I think the case could be made that his executive orders overstretch the authority of the executive.
Whether or not these changes are a good thing is another debate, but I don't really think this is an abuse of power--at least, not a blatant abuse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why would you have to?
Assume for a moment that tuition does not become more expensive. Where is the money for raises coming from, especially from schools without large endowments and/or research spinoffs?
Posted by crozierr (Member # 12667) on :
its an incredible statement about your community that this discussion has been so civil.
please allow me to demonstrate to you why Ron Paul has so many supporters who are so devoted to his cause:
He *is* nuts because hes a hardcore libertarian who happens to sound reasonable on a few things but only because the US has been increasing going insane faster than Ron Paul.
Posted by crozierr (Member # 12667) on :
im not spam! im joining the conversation Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why would you have to?
Assume for a moment that tuition does not become more expensive. Where is the money for raises coming from, especially from schools without large endowments and/or research spinoffs?
What the hell are they spending all their money on right now? I see tuition spiking as much as 10% at where I went to undergrad, yet the professors had to strike two years ago because the university wanted to freeze salaries and reduce benefits.
They're charging us more and more and the money isn't going to professors, so where is it going?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its an awfully strange first post if ye don't mind me sayin' by my lonesome.
Regardless, I still stand by my reckoning that Ron Paul only appears to be of sound mind in some respects because of em United States getting more crazy as time goes by than Ron Paul is who already is as crazy as he will get I reckon.
edit: Also that is preciselin' what spam would claim.... Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ron Paul is a nut because he wants to walk away from Israel and because he wants to implement a gold standard. Other people think he's a nut for other reasons that I don't find as disastrous.
But if he makes it to the general, I guess I'd vote for him since he doesn't have the power to do those things single handedly. I mean, Obama's had his 3 years and I haven't succumbed to spontaneous human combustion.
And yeah, we have a civil discourse around here because we don't communicate via rosters of youtube links.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually its a scarce commodity/basket standing, it wouldn't be solely gold but a basket of scarce commodities, which I think might be more workable if it could be correlated to our current economy.
I'm not entirely sure what we do that really helps Israel today, sure we shield them in the UN but since when did we military put a foot forward to them? Its just free munitions, maybe with less of US help they wouldn't feel so free to mess around unnecessarily in the West Bank.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Ron Paul is a nut because he wants to walk away from Israel and because he wants to implement a gold standard. Other people think he's a nut for other reasons that I don't find as disastrous.
But if he makes it to the general, I guess I'd vote for him since he doesn't have the power to do those things single handedly. I mean, Obama's had his 3 years and I haven't succumbed to spontaneous human combustion.
And yeah, we have a civil discourse around here because we don't communicate via rosters of youtube links.
While I think that Congress would stop most of his major policy proposals, the bigger problem is that I think his principled stand, which I actually believe him on, mostly, would grind the government to a halt. He'd veto a lot of stuff, Congress wouldn't pass his legislation, and literally nothing would get done for four more years. Too dangerous a time for NOTHING to happen in four years.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why would you have to?
Assume for a moment that tuition does not become more expensive. Where is the money for raises coming from, especially from schools without large endowments and/or research spinoffs?
What the hell are they spending all their money on right now? I see tuition spiking as much as 10% at where I went to undergrad, yet the professors had to strike two years ago because the university wanted to freeze salaries and reduce benefits.
They're charging us more and more and the money isn't going to professors, so where is it going?
Assistant to the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students' Equality of Speech?
Seriously though, I've read things that seemed to imply that universities are operating under ever-inflating bureaucratic administrations that eat up huge chunks of the budget and contribute arguably trivial value. I'll freely admit that I don't follow this topic too closely, though, and this idea plays well to my biases, so if someone has some concrete facts that contradict (or support!) this, feel free to share them. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Assistant to the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students' Equality of Speech?
How ****ing DARE you sir?
As the attache to the assistant to the vice-chancellor's bottle washer, I am DEEPLY, offended. You'll be hearing from the managing assistance secretary in charge of channeling angry letters through a thick web of bureaucracy.
I SAID GOOD DAY!
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Dan_Frank is racist against Assistant to the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students' Equality of Speech.
How do you live with yourself, Dan?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's good friends with the Deputy Vice Assistant for Scheduling in the counseling office.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That cesspool of intolerance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There aren't a whole lot of administrator slacking off around here. Most of them work pretty darn hard as do the staff. Even here, at a pretty expensive private school, tuition pays only part of what it costs per student. The rest is gifts, grants, and endowment. Endowments have taken a hit in recent years. We are in a pretty good position but a lot of other school are not only freezing hiring but cutting pay.
Salaries are not the only costs to a university. We have to pay electric bills, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of it is also simply wasted spending.
Universities have always had to pay utilities, and all the other random costs of being a university...but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As a vacation from the policy discussions, Politico broke some gossipy news last weekend about two women who accused Herman Cain of "sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable" while he was the CEO of the National Restaurant Association. The women eventually left the Association under agreements that gave them financial payouts and also included a ban on speaking about their leaving the group.
Cain's pushed back against the story, calling it purely political, without outright denying any of the accusations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My, things are getting messier than I thought they were. For all the talk we usually have every four years about Democrats devouring their young, the Republicans this year, and still with two months to go, are getting particularly vicious.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My, things are getting messier than I thought they were. For all the talk we usually have every four years about Democrats devouring their young, the Republicans this year, and still with two months to go, are getting particularly vicious.
Why do you think it was a political hatchet job, rather than simply investigative reporting? I'd wondered the same thing, but I don't immediately see evidence that that was the case. It reminds me of the John Edwards story from 2007/8, which had dramatic political impact but didn't seem (at least to me) to be politically motivated.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A lot of it is also simply wasted spending.
Universities have always had to pay utilities, and all the other random costs of being a university...but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
I don't see anything so show more wasted spending in universities than elsewhere. Especially when it comes to the salaries of top administrators which are certainly comfortable but in the low 6 figures rather than the high 7 figures.
Again, a big part of university expenses are paid by endowment money and giving. Both of those have taken a big hit in the past decade.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lyrhawn: the answer to your question, as I understand it, is -- at least for state schools -- "construction projects." And it would seem easy to say, "Oh, you should stop building things if it's going to cost the students more," but there're a couple catches there: 1) Big donors want to give to new buildings; they do not want to give to the General Fund. So while you could solicit a big gift for a building and then sit on it until you've saved up for enough to build it without costing the students anything extra, the reality is that many donors will get tired of waiting for their gift to amount to anything; often those gifts are given with strings attached that cause the money to revert back to the donor if the building isn't constructed within a certain timeframe. 2) Students and faculty both like to go to schools with big, new buildings. This is true even if the school has jacked up its tuition to build them. The school down the road that didn't leverage its student body to build that jazzy new union or science center now looks like a poor relation, even though it's actually been more fiscally responsible. 3) Sometimes you actually have to build new things in order to do groundbreaking research, replace crumbling infrastructure, or accommodate a growing student body. But this is the rare case.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But hasn't this always been the case? Or is this building spree a recent trend?
Senoj -
The timing. It's awfully convenient for something like this to come out right when Cain is as his apex of popularity. It smacks of one of the other candidates leaking it to the press.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The timing. It's awfully convenient for something like this to come out right when Cain is as his apex of popularity. It smacks of one of the other candidates leaking it to the press.
"Awfully convenient" was why I wondered as well, but I think the motivation evidence is weaker than it seems on the surface. Romney probably doesn't mind Cain's popularity, given that it seems unlikely to transfer into primary wins. Maybe he got spooked by Cain's reported uptick in fundraising since last quarter, but Romney's still out raising him by quite a bit and has a huge organizational advantage. Perry hasn't recovered from a disastrous September; his new team is still getting into place, so he's not really ready to capitalize on a Cain stumble. I guess it could be someone from Paul's or Gingrich's camps (I doubt Bachmann/Santorum/Huntsman have sufficient motivation), but it still seems that enterprising journalists chasing down ideas is the more likely story.
The Edwards story broke about the same time in the primary cycle, and IIRC he was polling strong in Iowa at that point (which he eventually lost to Obama, while just edging out Hillary for second). Do you think Obama or Clinton (or Biden or Dodd) were using the media to sink Edwards' campaign? I don't doubt such machinations can occur (and probably have), but I think the straightforward explanation is usually the better one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I heard an interview on NPR this morning with the Politico reporter who did the story. The reporter said that Politico has been trying to get Cain's campaign to respond to their questions about this for two or three weeks, and that it was the lack of response from Cain's campaign that led him to ask Cain about it directly.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:"I would be delighted to clear the air," he said. "I have never sexually harassed anyone. While at the National Restaurant Association, I was accused of sexual harassment. Falsely, I might ad. When charges were brought, I recused myself and allowed my accountant my human resources officer" to handle the cases. He said he was never aware of the settlements. "I hope it wasn't for much, because I didn't do anything."
You could parse his denial finely to read that he'd never done anything that rose to the level of harassment, which doesn't directly refute the claim from the original story that he had engaged in "sexually suggestive behavior" that made the women "angry and uncomfortable." So maybe this is a non-denial denial, but that "I didn't do anything" seems likely to be pretty damning if additional details come out and are verified.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I checked out the politico story. It looks to me like it started as a press leak from another campaign. Basically, all you need to do to get some positive/negative press is find a verifiable story. Give it to the press on confidential terms, and tell them who they'd need to talk to for verification. That's when you get "Multiple sources confirmed." There are people in major campaigns whose soul task is to do opposition research. During the primary, this includes opposition research on fellow Republicans. If your campaign is faltering or another's is growing too quickly, you give the information to a news source. Media outlets love an exclusive story, so they take these leaks very seriously and give them full attention.
If the article said that the women in question approached Politico, or if a member of the National Restaurant Association approached Politico on the condition of anonymity, I'd be less inclined to say that this wasn't research done by another campaign. Whether true or false, the timing and phrasing of the article is such that I think the story started from some opposition research.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Soul task or soulless task? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Never aware? On the one hand, I'm far from well-informed about the ins-and-outs of sexual harrassment lawsuits. But it seems really strange that he wouldn't have either asked or been told the result of lawsuits against him.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The women themselves couldn't approach Politico without breaking their NDAs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I heard an interview on NPR this morning with the Politico reporter who did the story. The reporter said that Politico has been trying to get Cain's campaign to respond to their questions about this for two or three weeks, and that it was the lack of response from Cain's campaign that led him to ask Cain about it directly.
It seems to me the only question is, do we believe this reporter did in fact ask for a response on this question already, weeks long in fact? Yes or no, how can it be checked?
The news may have become widespread thanks to opposition leaking, but if the Cain campaign's policy on this was 'say nothing and hope nothing comes of it', well...that's not a very good plan, and it seems strange to me to pin this on opposition research if that's the case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Cain offers a flat out denial: "I hope it wasn't for much, because I didn't do anything."
Both ladies received five figure settlements. His definition of not much differs from mine.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, yeah, I imagine it would, wouldn't it?
Come on BB, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Settlement does not equal guilt, and my kitchen can attest to the fact that where there's smoke there is not always fire.
That being said, sure, it's totally possible that Cain is lying through his teeth (what a delightfully pointless expression that is). I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm also not jumping to believe it.
PS: I wouldn't be so racist against the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students Equality of Speech if those Canadian students weren't all coming here to steal my job and then talk about how they stole my job.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Not only are they not happy with Obama's reform, many of them want to get rid of student loans all together and let the private sector take over.
As someone who has both private and federal student loans, I'll tell you right now that anyone who calls for total privatization will get me off my ass and out the door to start a rally against them.
Not to mention that while private loans cannot be escaped via bankruptcy, they lack all the protections of federal loans (payment options like IBR and extended repayment; required deferment and forbearance in specific situations (some private lenders offer forbearance, but they are not legally required to); various loan forgiveness programs). They also depend on student (or co-signer) credit worthiness, which most penalizes those who need the most help.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Universities also make alot of money through research and sports, and that is how they get alot of prestige. If you began penalizing them in those areas for increases in student costs, I bet many of them could reign in costs.
Some schools -- the ones who make headlines -- get large amounts of their income from research and/or sports. But since those areas are fairly separate from tuition, how would such penalties work? Raise tuition more than x% and lose NCAA eligibility and the ability to apply for research grants in certain fields?
The mind boggles.
I guess the many many many small schools with little or no research grant income and no significant sports programs would at least get to not worry about this theoretical plan.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: They aren't ENTIRELY wrong on this. The plan Obama has will basically make it education cost meaningless after a certain threshold. If everyone will, in the end, pay the same amount for college, why would a future social worker choose a state school over an IVY League?
The maximum Stafford amounts already don't cover the difference between state schools and Ivy League. Leaving IBR and loan forgiveness completely out of the mix. Students at Ivies who are taking out huge amounts in loans are either getting PLUS loans (really, their parents are), which are not eligible for IBR, or private loans.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: And, quite frankly, Obama doing this WITHOUT going through congress is a blatant abuse of power. I think it's absolutely foolish for him to do this in his first term.
He was only able to do this because Congress already PASSED A LAW CONTAINING THESE CHANGES. He's just enacting it as of 2012 instead of 2014.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Also, I think having all the loans held by the Federal Government is unwise - and not just because it's causing my own employer some strife. The FELP program had pretty good controls in it to make sure that federally backed student loans stayed tied to market rates. Sure, sometimes the federal government paid a subsidy to the loan holders, but in the last few years, the loan holders were actually paying subsidy BACK to the federal government! Laws that surrounding interest rates protected students from anything two terrible and provided students with alot of borrower benefits. While there were some problems with it, it was a fairly solid program.
By the time the switch to all federal happened, FFELP was dead. The only lenders still handling significant volumes of new FFELP loans were turning around and selling them in batches to the Department of Education. (These are called PUT loans, and became possible because of ECASLA.)
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: The new "all direct federal loan" program isn't so great. For one thing, it allows our president to do this kind of forgiveness program WITHOUT going through congress.
The Department of Education (part of the Executive branch) had this sort of control over FFELP just as much as over DL. Just less directly (if you'll pardon the pun.)
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Plus, they really don't know what they're doing trying to administer their program. I've gotten 3 different notices from them in 1 week about my account, all with totally different information on it!
Are you sure they're all one loan? Good chance you and your son have multiple loans -- a PLUS, a FFELP/PUT, and a DL. Quite possibly all from the same lender/servicer.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
Private college costs have not gone up at nearly the rate of state schools (with the exception of Ivies and their ilk). State school tuition keeps rising largely because states keep reducing the percentage of costs covered by money from the state itself.
Ivies and other highly-competitive schools raise tuition in large part because it gets them more applicants and higher rankings to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But hasn't this always been the case? Or is this building spree a recent trend?
Timing. Many of the larger schools had buildings legitimately needing replacement/repair/retrofitting about 15-25 years back. Then you gradually get the competitive spiral/trickle-down Tom is talking about (shiny new building to compete with Jones U a few miles away, etc.)
Where I work is a very small campus, and we're strongly considering a new location (in a brand-new building), primarily because it really will attract students.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Well, yeah, I imagine it would, wouldn't it?
Come on BB, litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. Settlement does not equal guilt, and my kitchen can attest to the fact that where there's smoke there is not always fire.
That being said, sure, it's totally possible that Cain is lying through his teeth (what a delightfully pointless expression that is). I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm also not jumping to believe it.
PS: I wouldn't be so racist against the Assistant Vice Dean of Canadian Transfer Students Equality of Speech if those Canadian students weren't all coming here to steal my job and then talk about how they stole my job.
I didn't say the man was guilty, or that legal costs are inexpensive. I maintained I didn't believe Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation from the moment he was first accused until his death. I don't generally jump on bandwagons.
But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The original Politico article claims one of the suits stemmed from a woman who attended a conference with Cain. During the course of the conference she claims he invited her up to his room, which she took as an unwanted sexual advance.
A separate source claims one of the allegations, as related by Cain, arose from an office discussion with a woman in which he compared her height to that of his wife. In doing so he used a gesture which she found discomfiting.
quote:The smallness of the settlement deserves attention because sexual harassment is a tort that covers a lot of territory, everything from prolonged and brutal sexual humiliation to an untoward joke. A settlement in the $10,000-$90,000 range is likely going to arise from behavior that is on the low-end of the spectrum.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Good to know.
Posted by crozierr (Member # 12667) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually its a scarce commodity/basket standing, it wouldn't be solely gold but a basket of scarce commodities, which I think might be more workable if it could be correlated to our current economy.
and, for the modern world, here is a company that already trades gold electronically. They hold it, you own it, its a number on your screen. The concept is still in those awkward preteen years thou http://www.e-gold.com/
so you see, Ron Paul seeks to allow the people to create and use competing currencies. This will initially act with the FED sort of like the UPS and Fedex act with the US Postal Service.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What the hell are they spending all their money on right now? I see tuition spiking as much as 10% at where I went to undergrad, yet the professors had to strike two years ago because the university wanted to freeze salaries and reduce benefits. They're charging us more and more and the money isn't going to professors, so where is it going?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A lot of it is also simply wasted spending. Universities have always had to pay utilities, and all the other random costs of being a university...but what has changed in the last decade to send costs spiraling out of control?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And yeah, we have a civil discourse around here because we don't communicate via rosters of youtube links.
Point taken, however, I have found that upon mention of Ron Paul, you, in some circles, get
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He *is* nuts because hes a hardcore libertarian
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Ron Paul is a nut because he wants to walk away from Israel and because he wants to implement a gold standard. Other people think he's a nut for other reasons that I don't find as disastrous.
So in order to talk about what he has said and did, and to not talk about what talking heads have said about him on the television, videos are required but rest assured, I engage, i inform. I'll let you draw your own conclusions
Part of the problem of inflation isn`t so much of inflation in of itself, small amount of inflation is good for the poor as it devalues their debts and forces rich people with massive savings to spend their money or lose it.
2009ish, national savings average was -10%+, meaning that the average american had debts, so inflation would actually helped Americans in that respect, and usually most peoples savings arent all that high since then, so a 5% increase in inflation wouldnt hurt.
The problem is that inflation so far being calculated has been increasingly being fudged and is completely ficticious, the US neither accurately calculates its gdp growth or its inflation, choosing instead to fiddle with the numbers to make them *better* to the point that the tools the government has to calculate inflation and gdp growth no longer reflect reality.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
This is exactly what made me start thinking, "OK, he's lying about something," regarding Cain. It just rang really false to me, and after thinking about it for a few moments the possibilities where it might be true weren't very nice either. Suppose he didn't, in fact, ask or care what the settlement was at all. What does that indicate, that you're apathetic to the outcome of sexual harrassment lawsuits against you? I don't know what it would indicate, but many of the possibilities are unpleasant.
Now I say all of that having no experience with sexual harrassment lawsuits, much less being sued for it or representing someone who has been sued for it. So I can't say with any kind of authority that it smacks of deception-but it looks pretty bad to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert wants to "coopt"/back OWS I think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But, it's bizarre to act like you just signed off on everything and you had no idea how the outcome panned out on something that serious. If I was accused of sexual harassment not even twice, but once, I would certainly know a lot of the basic details like how much of my money I spent in settlement.
This is exactly what made me start thinking, "OK, he's lying about something," regarding Cain. It just rang really false to me, and after thinking about it for a few moments the possibilities where it might be true weren't very nice either. Suppose he didn't, in fact, ask or care what the settlement was at all. What does that indicate, that you're apathetic to the outcome of sexual harrassment lawsuits against you? I don't know what it would indicate, but many of the possibilities are unpleasant.
Now I say all of that having no experience with sexual harrassment lawsuits, much less being sued for it or representing someone who has been sued for it. So I can't say with any kind of authority that it smacks of deception-but it looks pretty bad to me.
If these are the very minor incidents that they have been made out to be, I can very much see Cain giving his version of events and then letting the legal people handle it without taking any more interest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If these are the very minor incidents that they have been made out to be, I can very much see Cain giving his version of events and then letting the legal people handle it without taking any more interest.
Really? I guess we have very different 'that don't make sense' angles of perspective, then, at least on this. Which isn't a criticism, btw-it just feels off to me, but given how badly informed I am on the topic (and short of delving many hours into the legalities and practices of sexual harrassment lawsuits, I don't see how to rectify that), it's really just a gut feeling.
It just doesn't jive with what little I know that a high power executive would consider multiple sexual harrassment lawsuits as 'very minor', even if they were based on incidents that were in fact very minor. It just has such huge potential to be nasty, media-wise, I think such a man would be at least somewhat interested.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The piece is almost a mash note to Mitt Romney; one of the commenters said it seemed like a PR piece from the Romney campaign. However, the author made very obvious that, if anything, the campaign was antagonistic to her while she was prepping the piece.
I personally know, from my time in the Boston LDS community, several of the people quoted in the article. So perhaps my finding the article interesting is more a facet of seeing some friends quoted in a CNN article. But personally I thought it was an excellent depiction of what impact his LDS church commitments, including voluntary leadership and missionary service, have had on Romney.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it was settled out of court, and if he didn't pay it out of pocket himself, it wouldn't at all surprise me if he didn't know all the details like that. When I was sued a few years ago as part of a car accident, I only got random letters from Allstate telling me what was happening, and then one at the end telling me how much they settled for.
It really doesn't sound like this was that big a deal, but then without details it's hard to say. He could have been creepy and intrusive, or they could have overreacted, or both. Impossible to say, but it's not a full on sex scandal.
I don't think it's quite as out there as some people are making it out to be, but it IS pretty whacky at parts. His delivery is less polished and more folksy than we're conditioned to believe presidents should be, and that doesn't bother me really. But some of the material is like a parody of every drunk scene you've ever seen in a sitcom.
He's actually pretty funny at points. It's honestly a win/lose. People vote for presidents who they most feel resemble themselves, their values, people they want to have a beer with. It's why Bush did so well despite policy disasters. It's why Obama did so well despite a lack of experience. It's why Cain is rising, because people like his sometimes whacky straight talk. Perry comes off as much more of a "normal" guy than Romney ever has. On the other hand...it's still kind of out there for a presidential candidate.
Remember when Clinton broke down and cried in New Hampshire. Sometimes people throw an emotional Hail Mary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's funny. I have to say, Huntsman has always been my favorite of the GOP candidates, mostly because he's the most moderate, and I think also the least slick. I only rarely feel like he's trying to shove an ideological agenda down my throat, and I only rarely see him shamelessly digging Democrats just because. It always comes across as more of an after thought to him.
But over the last month or so, I'm also leaning towards just plain liking him the most. He seems nice and smart, like attacking people isn't his first duty, but rather an unfortunate necessity (which is why I think an Obama/Huntsman race would be so great, since neither really relish combative politics). His family appears tight knit and loving, and all of them have such great senses of humor.
I'm thinking about voting for him in Michigan's primary. I just wish the Tea Party wasn't dragging the GOP so far to the right that Huntsman isn't radical enough to be taken seriously, or hasn't come up with the right gimmick to fascinate the masses.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This is pretty problematic, I don't think Cain has said anything problematic regarding to two women, but he is going to continue to be probed about this and if he does say too much, it might be fair to let them be released from their agreement.
What's worse is if he doesn't let them say anything, then it's fairly easy to see how people will raise eyebrows and say, "Why not let them speak?". But that's the point of a confidentiality agreement, you take your money, and agree not to go public about these things. Don't take the money if you can't keep your mouth shut.
But again, if Cain talks more and more frankly, I can't see why they should be barred from talking anymore.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The real story in that article is his bus.
It's terrifying.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I listened to a radio interview with Herman Cain, and they asked him if one of the women had ever travelled with him, and how well he knew her.
He said that he never travelled with her, barely even knew her, but that he did work on the same floor, as well as met with her boss on a regular basis.
I don't know, there are people out there that will accuse people in his position on purpose to get money. If I were filthy rich and someone falsely accused me of sexual harrassment, what can I do to prove my innocence? It becomes a he said / she said situation. Rather than spend a massive amount of money fighting the lawsuit, it would be cheaper to pay $10,000 and forget about the whole situation. I may not even show up during the negotiations. I'd send my lawyer to take care of everything.
Even showing up those types of negotiations could be taken as an admission of guilt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's also said he doesn't even know one of the two women's name.
quote:But when pressed on the contractual agreement, Cain denied that he had violated the confidentiality terms himself, when he talked about the claims to the media.
"I never used their name," Cain said on Fox News Tuesday. "For one of them I didn't even know the name."
Now I can grant the possibility that he never knew or asked or was informed what the settlement result was. It just seems really unlikely to me, but I admit my ignorance on the subject. But he didn't even know the name of someone suing him for sexual harrassment?
The settlement in and of itself is not enough to point to guilt (or innocence) for me personally. For some of the reasons Geraine just described. The explanations about the settlement, about what was known when or what and who was informed, just strike me as...strange. I'm trying to put my head in the space where I'm a powerful, ambitious executive and someone is suing me for sexual harrassment. I didn't do it, I know I didn't do it, so I don't feel morally bound to fight it out to the end. But...I never ask, "Who is suing me for sexual harrassment?" The lawyers who are working on my behalf never tell me her name-I never ask? I'm never interested in what the outcome was, and they never inform me? That's where my imagination starts to falter.
On a semi-related subject, I love how some Cain supporters are calling this a 'hi-tech lynching'. Man do they want that race card back in their deck in the worst way!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The "high-tech lynching" language is lifted directly from Clarence Thomas' denial of Anita Hill's allegations. There's been an immediate push, helped along obliquely by Cain himself, to draw a comparison to the Hill/Thomas fiasco. The comparison fails on many points, but it's probably advantageous for Cain to have people make it (especially since Hill survived the allegations).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Wait wait wait, Cain supporters want the race card in their deck? Right, Cain supporters are TOTALLY trying to throw out racist claims for no reason.
Hold on, what did Karen Finney say on MSNBC?
quote:
FINNEY: One of the things about Herman Cain is I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racists because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass.
BASHIR: Wow.
FINNEY: And I think they like him because they think he is a black man who knows his place and I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me.
Yep, Cain supporters are TOTALLY drumming this all up. I mean, what conservative would ever support a black man for president? It must because he knows his place!
Weren't there Democrats out there prior to the 2008 election that said if you didn't vote for Barack Obama it proved you were a racist?
Come on Rakeesh, racism is bad no matter what. The "card" you refer to doesn't belong to anyone, nor should it. To suggest it belongs to a particular group or that a group "wants it back" is just.... tacky.
I do disagree with the hi-tech lynching comment, I do not think this story was motivated by race at all. Digging up dirt on candidates is something that happens every election cycle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What was it Cain said about racism impacting minorities in this country?
"I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way,” said, Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, during an interview on CNN. “Are there some elements of racism? Yes, it gets back to if we don’t grow this economy, that is a ripple effect for every economic level, and because blacks are more disproportionately unemployed, they get hit the worst when economic policies don’t work. That’s where it starts."
Racism...doesn't hold blacks back in this country in a big way. This in a country where sometimes you'll get shot a whole lot for picking up a wallet, or where having a name that 'sounds black' will harm your chances of getting a job.
Are you really going to insist, Geraine, that conservatives in this country are likely not to feel better about a black politician who says race isn't a problem in this country anymore?
Anyway, my point was not morally that Democrats have the race card and should get to keep it. It was that, politically, Democrats and liberals have the race card, and Republicans and conservatives would like to have it-hence calling this a racial thing. As for Democrats in 2008, sure, some claimed that, not unlike some Republicans suggested a vote against McCain (or earlier, against Bush) was a vote for hating America and honest working Americans.
As for whether the 'race card' should belong to anyone...well. I think if it's going to belong to anyone, it ought to belong to the group which either supports more, or opposes less, actions which will improve the lot of minorities in this country.
As for 'digging up dirt'...the Cain campaign was asked about this for quite some time before it became widespread news. Their policy on the matter seems to have been 'say nothing'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't use Finney's wording, but I've said almost the exact same thing somewhere in this thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So have I. It seems strange to me that someone would deny that conservative Republicans wouldn't be reassured by a prominent black primary contender suggesting that racism ain't no thing anymore.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
Lyr and Rakeesh, you guys are essentially using one fact to try and prove the other, but they're fundamentally different assertions.
I don't think anyone disagrees that one thing that conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he agrees that racism is not a major problem today, and not one that needs to be solved through more legislation.
But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I can see how, if you reject any validity to the first premise, you might interpret someone's appreciation for it as implicit proof of the second premise... but I'd at least like you to acknowledge that you're doing it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
I think they can be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the same thing. I also don't think Republican primary voters in general like Cain because he says racism isn't a big problem anymore, for the record. But I sure think it helps. (To an extent that I think people who suggest it doesn't are kidding themselves.)
quote:But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I'm not sure either of us have said that. 'Feeling like I'm not a racist' is not the same thing as 'getting a pass for my racism and stays in his place'. The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way? What I feel is a part of Cain's appeal, however (and I acknowledge lots of guessing here) is that a successful black Presidential candidate who says, "Racism isn't a big problem for minorities anymore," serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The news today should be "A sexual harassment disaster has overshadowed the rest of the disaster which is Cain's campaign"
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I am still willing to vote for Cain so long as he goes on camera stating "I want to the very best, like no one ever was."
It is somewhat jarring to see how quickly the masses reacted and forgot about his pokemon quote, I expect persons of influence to have some skeletons in the closest but pikachu toys? that raises some serious questions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The news today should be "A sexual harassment disaster has overshadowed the rest of the disaster which is Cain's campaign"
It's like a flu epidemic in chernobyl.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
An outbreak of pinkeye on the Hindenberg.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Do you think there is a difference between liking a candidate who says racism isn't a big problem anymore... and liking a candidate because liking him proves you aren't racist so you can continue in your otherwise racist views?
I think they can be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the same thing. I also don't think Republican primary voters in general like Cain because he says racism isn't a big problem anymore, for the record. But I sure think it helps. (To an extent that I think people who suggest it doesn't are kidding themselves.)
quote:But I think many people would disagree that one thing conservatives like about Herman Cain is that he gives them a pass on their racism and stays in his place.
I'm not sure either of us have said that. 'Feeling like I'm not a racist' is not the same thing as 'getting a pass for my racism and stays in his place'. The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way? What I feel is a part of Cain's appeal, however (and I acknowledge lots of guessing here) is that a successful black Presidential candidate who says, "Racism isn't a big problem for minorities anymore," serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations.
I think you're basically right. I'm positive many conservatives feel a visceral satisfaction in being able to fully support a black guy who seems to share their values, because it demonstrates that their aversion to Obama is similarly based on his values, not based on his race. You put it extremely well, I think, with your last sentence: it "serves as a pretty pointed rebuttal to those not uncommon accusations."
I still think this is a far cry from what, for example, Finney was saying. Do you agree?
PS:
quote: The accusation of racism isn't uncommon from the left towards the right, but obviously the right doesn't secretly think themselves racist-who thinks that way?
PPS: Don't follow my links. At most, maybe hover over them to see the URLs. On reflection, even posting those links might be against the TOS. If it is, I will happily remove them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: An outbreak of pinkeye on the Hindenberg.
A financial disaster during an mega asteroid impact.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Free Rick Astley tickets being given away at a Backstreet Boys reunion concert.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Free Rick Astley tickets being given away at a Backstreet Boys reunion concert.
HEY!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan
Those are fringe groups. I mean, I imagine they must be in this day and age, it's not like when Klan memberships was measured in the tens of millions. It gets down to the "everyone's a little bit racist" thing. Some people have it way worse than others, and a lot of people think their views are perfectly true and justified rather than being racially prejudiced, so no, I don't think the majority of racists are out and proud racists.
Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
[ November 02, 2011, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Free Rick Astley tickets being given away at a Backstreet Boys reunion concert.
HEY!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Those are fringe groups.
What is with the hate for the 80s/90s pop? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Free Rick Astley tickets being given away at a Backstreet Boys reunion concert.
HEY!
Which one are you objecting to? Or both?
Secret confession: I owned two Backstreet Boys cds in high school, and I actually think "Never Gonna Give You Up" is catchy and delightful at times.
Edit to add: "Those are fringe groups" was to Dan about the Klan.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
Really? So, I am reading her basic sentiment to include this implicit statement: The Republican base is, by and large, racist.
Do you agree with my reading? Hell, I don't even think it's all that implicit, but maybe I'm just hyper sensitive.
PS: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
That or they're just a bunch of prejudiced jerks.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(and yes, I know they are fringe groups, that was actually sort of my point)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Like I said before, Finney's wording wasn't as good as it could be, but her basic sentiment is right.
Really? So, I am reading her basic sentiment to include this implicit statement: The Republican base is, by and large, racist.
Do you agree with my reading? Hell, I don't even think it's all that implicit, but maybe I'm just hyper sensitive.
PS: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
That or they're just a bunch of prejudiced jerks.
Yeah, I guess she does say that. I'm not sure if I agree or not. It's too many people to paint with such a broad brush, but I think it's a demon that is prevalent in the Republican base whether they want to admit it or not, and by and large they DON'T want to admit it. She might have qualified her statement a bit when she said "that base" as if to imply that only a subsection is racist, but I'll admit that's splitting hairs.
I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Or both?
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Secret confession: I owned two Backstreet Boys cds in high school, and I actually think "Never Gonna Give You Up" is catchy and delightful at times.
I make no secret of the fact that I enjoy both Rick Astley and the Backstreet Boys.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Edit to add: "Those are fringe groups" was to Dan about the Klan.
I like my read better.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rivka, I think people hate on the music of the 80s because the music of the 80s is a terrible, irredeemable abomination which is best left forgotten.
Like I care about the musical opinions of someone who talks to dead people. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Once again, I think this is precisely right. If you asked most conservatives "Do you deny the need to give [minorities] special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression" you would get a pretty consistent answer. So then the crux is whether or not such a stance is racist. Which is ground we've tread before, I think.
But fundamentally, if someone's ideology is such that they don't think anyone should get special treatment, I think it's really, really slimy to paint them as racist for their answer to that question. Saying they are racist implies they are trying to hurt minorities because they are minorities, out of malice (or subconscious malice). See the difference?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Like I care about the musical opinions of someone who talks to dead people.
If they've been the subject of necromantic magic, they're not dead, Rivka, they're undead. Sheesh! This is basic stuff here.
What school did you say you went to again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Better than the one you went to, apparently. Necromancers don't bring the dead back to life; they summon a spirit and talk to them.
Talks to dead people AND is in denial about it. Sheesh indeed!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think part of the problem also isn't so much overt "I hate black people" racism so much as it is a general denial of the need to give them special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression. A candidate that says "you don't need to treat them differently" justifies their desire to destroy the infrastructure of help that we've created in this country to help minorities, and they're sick of being called racist whenever they try to do so.
Once again, I think this is precisely right. If you asked most conservatives "Do you deny the need to give [minorities] special treatment in recognition of this country's longstanding oppression" you would get a pretty consistent answer. So then the crux is whether or not such a stance is racist. Which is ground we've tread before, I think.
But fundamentally, if someone's ideology is such that they don't think anyone should get special treatment, I think it's really, really slimy to paint them as racist for their answer to that question. Saying they are racist implies they are trying to hurt minorities because they are minorities, out of malice (or subconscious malice). See the difference?
It's hard to separate the two. When you constantly rail against a group that just happens to be black or latino, it's really easy to assign motivations that may or may not be fair. However, the denial to recognize the hand that government had in putting a lot of them in that position to begin with is problematic for me. Are we not responsible for our actions, no matter how long ago they were?
On the other hand, a recent poll in Mississippi, not exactly a liberal bastion, reported that 48% of people there think mixed race marriages should be illegal.
Obviously there's still racism out there, and it does tend to congregate in one particular party.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Better than the one you went to, apparently. Necromancers don't bring the dead back to life; they summon a spirit and talk to them.
Talks to dead people AND is in denial about it. Sheesh indeed!
Oh I see our disagreement is actually not as fundamental as you think. It's just semantic!
See, I'm utilizing the modern, common usage (or "DanDy") definition of the word. You're still trapped in the stodgy, outdated (or "correct") definition.
Now that I've clarified our disconnect, I'm sure you'll agree that I'm right.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Now that I've clarified our disconnect, I'm sure you'll agree that I'm right.
Nope. Nice try!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks! I thought so too!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obviously there's still racism out there, and it does tend to congregate in one particular party.
One particular party will bristle at the thought.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
I don't think it was racially limited, and I didn't read the raw polling data to see if they separated the respondents by race. Are you suggesting a significant amount of black voters against interracial marriage make have skewed the results?
And as far as a limit goes, why would that be, when the effects of those previous actions are still visited upon the nation's black population? There's no statute of limitations on crimes that span centuries.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That poll is really sad, Lyr. Curious too if it was exclusively white respondents? Source?
Re: responsibility of previous actions... well, of course we are, but obviously there is also some upward limit on how far back one would expect to go, yes?
I don't think it was racially limited, and I didn't read the raw polling data to see if they separated the respondents by race. Are you suggesting a significant amount of black voters against interracial marriage make have skewed the results?
Not really skewed them, no. Just curious to see if any of that was factored in. I mean, depending on where, and who the respondents were, I wouldn't be surprised to see an equal or greater number of black southerners also opposed to the idea. It's just a topic I think is interesting, and would love to see a more detailed breakdown.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And as far as a limit goes, why would that be, when the effects of those previous actions are still visited upon the nation's black population? There's no statute of limitations on crimes that span centuries.
But I feel like you just shifted the conversation again.
I think that at its most basic level the main reason most conservatives don't believe in giving special treatment to minorities is because they disagree that the effects of previous discrimination are still holding them back in a way that is universal for all minorities (or universal for all minorities of X race).
I may be wrong. Most conservatives would probably say it's even simpler than that: They just don't believe in treating anyone differently based on their race, period. But I think my previous paragraph still raises an interesting point.
[ November 03, 2011, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On your first point: I WOULD be surprised. Even if a majority of black respondents looked down their noses at interracial marriages, they would likely still demand the RIGHT to engage in one. Anti-miscegenation legislation was one of the big whoppers fought against by the civil rights movement.
On your second: How did I just shift the conversation? You just said that they feel like after awhile, those things shouldn't be a factor any more, and I said that's silly because the effects are still around. Now you're arguing that the effects have worn off? Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 60s, so almost 50 years ago, yes? That's right around the time that white flight really started to pick up, at which point urban areas took a serious nose dive.
Shelley V Kramer made restrictive covenants illegal in 48, but it wasn't until the Fair Housing Act in the late 60s that blacks were really able to exercise any sort of real freedom of movement...at least on paper. Truth is that most of them still had problems trying to move into suburban areas, either because of local terrorism or unfair lending practices from mortgage brokers. Between that and whites from the city flooding the suburbs, there simply wasn't anywhere for them to go, which left them stuck in inner cities which were decreasingly decaying with substandard education systems that became even worse once white tax dollars relocated to the suburbs. Fast forward to today, where a majority of blacks live in depressed urban areas with substandard education and housing with little chance of ever really escaping. Add to that a lousy housing market and restricted credit, and you have a situation where their freedom of movement is even more restricted. Some get out, either because they get lucky or they have inherent gifts or whatever, but the masses simply have the deck stacked against them, and WE STACKED IT AGAINST THEM starting from the very first day slaves were freed from plantations, we just subtly changed the way it was done every time they inched forward with progress.
It's the same mentality that makes Republicans forget that only a couple years ago, Wall Street tanked the entire economy, but now it's somehow not their fault at all that things still suck (though on a much larger scale, of course).
Problems don't go away just because you ignore them, and while I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, American simply isn't a place anymore where hard work grants you a Horatio Alger success story.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Re: Miscegenation... you're probably right. I don't know, man, in general the stat you quoted just seems very surprising, and I'm curious and a bit skeptical about the details of it. Hope you don't take offense at that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Truth is that most of them still had problems trying to move into suburban areas, either because of local terrorism or unfair lending practices from mortgage brokers. Between that and whites from the city flooding the suburbs, there simply wasn't anywhere for them to go, which left them stuck in inner cities which were decreasingly decaying with substandard education systems that became even worse once white tax dollars relocated to the suburbs. Fast forward to today, where a majority of blacks live in depressed urban areas with substandard education and housing with little chance of ever really escaping. Add to that a lousy housing market and restricted credit, and you have a situation where their freedom of movement is even more restricted. Some get out, either because they get lucky or they have inherent gifts or whatever, but the masses simply have the deck stacked against them, and WE STACKED IT AGAINST THEM starting from the very first day slaves were freed from plantations, we just subtly changed the way it was done every time they inched forward with progress.
So, are we still doing that? Or are all of the current problems a result of the accumulated previous injustices? I mean, are we still subtly changing the way we oppress them?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's the same mentality that makes Republicans forget that only a couple years ago, Wall Street tanked the entire economy, but now it's somehow not their fault at all that things still suck (though on a much larger scale, of course).
Have you genuinely not seen any conservative arguments that the fault of the financial collapse lies in great part with government intervention into the mortgage market (freddie, fannie, etc), that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and generally that while some Wall Street firms engaged in bad practices the fundamental flaw lies with the government? If you are aware of this argument... do you believe that no conservative honestly believes it, and they actually know that it's primarily Wall Street's fault and the government could have prevented it if only they had total control of the financial sector?
Because if you've heard this, and accept that conservatives think it is accurate, and your only beef with it is that you think it is factually inaccurate... well, that's fine, but then conservatives aren't "forgetting" anything, right? They're just disagreeing with you about the causes.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Problems don't go away just because you ignore them, and while I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, American simply isn't a place anymore where hard work grants you a Horatio Alger success story.
It can't, or it doesn't guarantee it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:So, are we still doing that? Or are all of the current problems a result of the accumulated previous injustices? I mean, are we still subtly changing the way we oppress them?
That's an interesting question. I wouldn't hazard a guess. For the purposes of what we're discussing, it doesn't really matter though, does it? The fact is that systemic inequalities still exist as a result of our past actions.
quote:Have you genuinely not seen any conservative arguments that the fault of the financial collapse lies in great part with government intervention into the mortgage market (freddie, fannie, etc), that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and generally that while some Wall Street firms engaged in bad practices the fundamental flaw lies with the government? If you are aware of this argument... do you believe that no conservative honestly believes it, and they actually know that it's primarily Wall Street's fault and the government could have prevented it if only they had total control of the financial sector?
Because if you've heard this, and accept that conservatives think it is accurate, and your only beef with it is that you think it is factually inaccurate... well, that's fine, but then conservatives aren't "forgetting" anything, right? They're just disagreeing with you about the causes.
Sure I've seen it. I don't at all think they all think that's accurate. They only started to sing that tune after the Tea Party achieved power and being anti-bail out was the cool thing to do. Senate Republicans voted for TARP by a two to one margin, and it was almost even in the House. And yes, I'm sure many of them have tried to foist off blame on Democrats, as many of them attempted to blame the whole thing on Clinton-era Democrats pushing changes in Fannie and Freddie, but it's crap. I don't believe they really think that. I think they know precisely what went wrong, but it's bad politics for their cronies, and they want to keep Wall Street deregulated, which is why they tried their hardest to stop Democrats from real regulatory reform of the banking industry in the wake of the collapse. It's revisionist history.
quote:It can't, or it doesn't guarantee it?
It never guaranteed it regardless. It guaranteed it IF you WORKED for it back when jobs were plentiful, but today even back breaking farm labor jobs can't raise a family above the poverty line.
Getting a good job by and large depends on education, which a big group of people in this country do not have access to, either for financial or geographic reasons. Or it requires start-up capital, if you want to take the entrepreneurial route, and that also requires resources that are limited by geography or financial status. It locks them in a cycle of poverty that requires an active effort to break.
Success should never be guaranteed, but historically, we've always believed that America is a place where you can succeed if you work hard. We aren't that way any more, but Republicans tend to ignore that fact, and they tend to label unsuccessful people with the blanket charge of "lazy," which is why you see so many, sometimes non-sensical, suggestions for reforming welfare that only keep people where they are. And oh so many more suggested "solutions" to poverty, like tax cuts for billionaires.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Cain fingering Perry's campaign is so out of left field for me, it may actually be true. If it is, (or even if it isn't but it creates enough drama) I think the Romney campaign can pop the corks on their Martenellis*.
*Yes I know Metenellis isn't corked, but they aren't drinking champagne.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I may be wrong. Most conservatives would probably say it's even simpler than that: They just don't believe in treating anyone differently based on their race, period. But I think my previous paragraph still raises an interesting point.
Wait a second-yes, they emphatically *do* believe in and support treating people differently by race: it's not really up for serious discussion that it's more than a bit better to be white than a minority in this country, and conservatives can be relied upon as a group to strongly resist efforts to intervene and mitigate that handicap for minorities.
They believe, even if they don't know it, in a system that treats white people better. Just because they've got sellouts like Cain lined up to tell 'em the system doesn't do that doesn't change that it actually does.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Support for racial profiling in police-work and at the airport would also be treating people differently based on race. I don't think treating people differently (period or otherwise) based on race cleanly separates between the two parties.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, alright: conservatives can be relied upon to a greater extent, then-I believe I mentioned that elsewhere. And liberals can be relied upon to resist such efforts more often than conservatives, the ones you mentioned.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry for the confusion, I was responding more to the quoted remark than you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Herman Cain = the Jamaican neighbor of the Republican Party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Herman Cain = the Jamaican neighbor of the Republican Party.
Nicely done. *amused*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait...does he have Jamaican neighbors, is he the Jamaican neighbor...or both?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's his own Jamaican neighbor? I think you just blew my mind.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do have to sorta admit that its kinda shooting fish in the barrel if the_somolian isn't actually here to bristle at this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My aim wasn't to poke at the somolian.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wrong consistently flagrant, insulting poster, Blayne. That one was for...geeze, his name is totally escaping me right now, actually. He had a bit of real person vibe comin' off him, but my impression was overwhelmingly partisan attack dog.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wrong consistently flagrant, insulting poster, Blayne. That one was for...geeze, his name is totally escaping me right now, actually. He had a bit of real person vibe comin' off him, but my impression was overwhelmingly partisan attack dog.
malanthrop?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup-they'll care in early November next year, but only to the extent that they care, "Rar! This guy is presiding over a crappy economy! Out!"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right, indeed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To clarify, my intention wasn't to poke or to poke fun at the poster with the neighbors. I don't even remember who it was. It was...shorthand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wonder if the retirement community has anything to do with it. On the one hand you would think they'd be worried about the economy for their children's sake, but on the other they already have their pensions and SS.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second-yes, they emphatically *do* believe in and support treating people differently by race: it's not really up for serious discussion that it's more than a bit better to be white than a minority in this country, and conservatives can be relied upon as a group to strongly resist efforts to intervene and mitigate that handicap for minorities.
Rakeesh, do you honestly not see that you are conflating "I want the government to treat everyone equally and I don't care if that means minorities who have the deck stacked against them by society won't get any help" with "I don't want to treat everyone equally"?
We're talking about government action, laws and legislation etc. And even accepting all of your and Lyr's premises re: inequality in society, you're still misrepresenting conservatives. You can say that they are apathetic to the plight of minorities (or even that they have malice in their hearts and hate minorities) but it's fundamentally untrue to act like being opposed to special treatment for minorities is somehow advocating treating minorities differently under the law. I think maybe you're confusing "treated equally under the law" with "fairness."
All that being said, Mucus totally nailed me on the racial profiling thing. Conservatives are all over that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I wonder if the retirement community has anything to do with it. On the one hand you would think they'd be worried about the economy for their children's sake, but on the other they already have their pensions and SS.
It could also be a sign that the poll's methodology was... y'know... fundamentally flawed. Seems to be a simpler and more believable explanation than "Floridians don't care if the country is ruined."
If we saw a poll showing 90% of Americans believe insane discredited vaccines-cause-autism hysteria, but the facts show that people are still getting their kids vaccinated and Michelle Bachmann's popularity plummeted after she spouted that crap, then I think we could safely question the validity of such a poll.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, do you honestly not see that you are conflating "I want the government to treat everyone equally and I don't care if that means minorities who have the deck stacked against them by society won't get any help" with "I don't want to treat everyone equally"?
I'm conflating the two because they are to some extent conflated. I realize it's not something conservatives are very comfortable with, but unless you want to dispute that government has had a strong, lasting impact on setting our society in its current condition-entirely aside from the question of whether ongoing racism in our society and government still exists-I don't see how you can argue that there is some crossover.
Because if you do believe that our government's nearly lifelong history of overt, legislated racism (and that's entirely aside from the history of our society before we were the USA) has had an impact that affects our current system...then yes, "I don't want to treat everyone equally," seems to me to be a fair statement. One group-the majority-has reaped substantial benefits that are still ongoing, at the expense of another group-racial minorities-among whom the cost is still felt. We don't typically treat victims equally to their victimizers.
If someone is stolen from, we don't then cry foul inequal treatment if the thief is compelled to give the money back, even though the crime is in the past. If I kidnap you, and you're freed by someone else, I don't get to say, "Wait a second, this is inequality!" if I'm imprisoned. I realize the comparisons aren't exact-no comparison of all of society down to individuals is ever going to be exact. But it is accurate in one sense: historically, as recently as a couple of generations ago, there have been victimizers and victims in our country on racial grounds in ways that are so clear cut, so black and white, that it cannot possibly be argued. For nearly half a millenia, in fact.
The victimizers passed the benefits of their efforts to their descendants, and the harm of their efforts to the descendants of the victims. It's still going on. It's not fixed yet. That's why the inequality is still going on, and that is why 'don't want anyone anywhere treated differently' amounts to 'don't want to treat minorities fairly'. I'm not talking about what such people intend, I'm talking about the actual impact of their beliefs.
quote:We're talking about government action, laws and legislation etc. And even accepting all of your and Lyr's premises re: inequality in society, you're still misrepresenting conservatives. You can say that they are apathetic to the plight of minorities (or even that they have malice in their hearts and hate minorities) but it's fundamentally untrue to act like being opposed to special treatment for minorities is somehow advocating treating minorities differently under the law. I think maybe you're confusing "treated equally under the law" with "fairness."
A couple of things: one, there's not much point in not accepting the premise that there is still inequality and ongoing racism in our society. It's something that is suggested a lot, but I doubt many of them are named Shanequa and having their job application read right after a 'Megan'. Two, the reason it's a contradiction is because being opposed to 'special treatment' for minorities is another way of saying 'we ought to reap the benefits of the special treatment we've been getting for dozens of generations'.
Unless you (general 'you' here in this case) think that there isn't some impact of all those centuries of work. That we've just...gotten over it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hey, Senoj, I'm reading this Politico piece on Obama's campaign tactics, and thought of your comments on the accusations about the economy. You might find it interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It could also be a sign that the poll's methodology was... y'know... fundamentally flawed. Seems to be a simpler and more believable explanation than "Floridians don't care if the country is ruined."
Suffolk is generally a mediocre pollster. But I think the better explanation is that the poll question elicits a Pavlovian response; people don't actually consider the question logically, but rather give a more visceral reaction to the parties in the question.
It's similar to polls from the mid-1980s that found that most Democrats <edit>believed</edit> inflation was higher under Reagan than Carter. I don't think those people were really that poorly informed; they just didn't support Reagan's policies and so wanted to say, essentially, "Reagan, boo!"
FYI, the polls internals say 44% of respondents identified as conservatives (vice 36% moderates and 13% liberal), 21% had children in the school systems, 70% were 45 or older, and 67% were white (vice 13% Latino and 12% African-American). Also, the respondents favored a national flat tax replacing the federal income tax 50-27! Which just demonstrates to me that people don't really think very much about their responses to complicated policy questions in telephone surveys.
[ November 03, 2011, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Hey, Senoj, I'm reading this Politico piece on Obama's campaign tactics, and thought of your comments on the accusations about the economy. You might find it interesting.
I saw Smith's teaser for that on his blog this morning but didn't click through to the full story. My take, based on the excerpt I read, was Smith was wide-eyed over what is actually a pretty common maneuver for a presidential candidate. I mean, it's not like Bush did a lot of his own attacking; he left it to Cheney or Rove. Same goes for Clinton, who used Carville and other bare-knuckle politicos for cover. Bush Sr. certainly made good use of, say, Lee Atwater, and I'm sure I could keep going down the line. It's just the way presidential politics generally works.
Although I will say that I think Obama's image doesn't seem to be nearly as susceptible as some previous Presidents' to tarnishing due to negative attacks generated by his political associates against his political opponents.
<edit>I did love this quote from David Mendell in the article, purely (or at least mostly) for the evocative imagery:
quote:David Axelrod has always been skillful at creeping into your room in the middle of the night and slicing out your heart, somehow without leaving behind a single fingerprint or drop of blood that ties him or his candidate to the crime.
</edit>
<edit2>This quote from Paul Begala, near the end of the article, provides a possible explanation for why Obama doesn't personally seem to receive much blow back from the negativity of his campaigns
quote:When he’s carving up those Republicans, it’s always with a smile and he gets the audience laughing at them. He eviscerated Donald Trump with humor. In that sense, he’s like Reagan. Reagan tore up the Democrats, but he always did it with humor, and no one ever thought the Gipper was mean spirited.
Maybe. I tend to think it has more to do with his "only in America" biography than his demeanor, but I'm sure his personal charisma plays a role.</edit2>
[ November 03, 2011, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Also, on the size of the settlement, this from David Frum:
quote:The smallness of the settlement deserves attention because sexual harassment is a tort that covers a lot of territory, everything from prolonged and brutal sexual humiliation to an untoward joke. A settlement in the $10,000-$90,000 range is likely going to arise from behavior that is on the low-end of the spectrum.
Numeric values for both severance agreements have now been reported in the press. The settlements were allegedly for $35,000 and $45,000. This seems to be at the low end for such things, and so seems to me to reinforce the idea that whatever happened it was neither very strongly evidenced nor of a highly explosive nature. It gives credence, I would say, to Cain's claims that these were relatively innocuous interactions that could, at least superficially, be explained away as "misunderstandings."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sorry, republican party, but you are as dumb as I always make fun of you for being. Herman Cain is still running neck and neck with Mitt Romney. You are a party where you can have the 9-9-9 plan and not immediately be politically nonviable. Hell, you're a party where you can have the 9-9-9 plan and still be making a good running for the lead. You are a party that makes this onion article dance dangerous and lurid with poe's law. Oh, and you are also a political party that can killibuster the entire government for the sake of your own political survival, and have been doing so pretty straightforwardly for years, oh my god, we're boned. Hey I like that word. Killibuster. I should trademark it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was an article in Time Magazine recently about how Cain supporters are stupid. Basically the article said that normally instead of directly attacking voters, the media tend to either go after the candidate, or to comment generally about the entire voting population, but he was breaking from that because Cain was just that ridiculous, and his supporters just that stupid.
Shows just how frustrated some people are becoming.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There are three ways to take this: They're all lying, they're all true, or some are true and some are not.
There's evidence to make each assumption troubling.
Given the fact that two cases were settled out of court, there's proof that at least two of them were handled before he ever publicly displayed any presidential aspirations, though he's tried to run for major public office before. Still that leads me to believe there's a history of this sort of inappropriate behavior, even if it's on the relative "lighter side" of sexual harassment. I'm inclined to believe at least something is going on, and that it's not "all lies" as Cain says.
On the other hand, so much of this is a cliche. The timing is ridiculously suspicious. Did it really only come out now because of front runner scrutiny, or is some of this manufactured only because he's out in front and someone like Perry wanted to drop the boom on him? Furthermore, black man as sexual predator to white females is a tired and overused racial stereotype, but it still has incredibly cache among certain subsections of the population, especially older people who are some of the mainstay of the GOP voting base. The fact that it's such an obvious stereotype has me doubtful.
I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
And they say republicans aren't in favor of stimulus packages...
(would it be more or less cliche if the victims were white males instead?)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I mean the cliche is that all sexual harassment is male on female, but BLACK man on WHITE female is an especially charged stereotype in America. It has at least a century and a half of very heavy baggage that goes with it that provokes an especially powerful gut reaction in a lot of people.
It's the sort of thing where if it's a white man, you shake your head in disapproval, but if it's a black man, a lot of people get a combination of outraged and lack of surprise because that's just how they are. It has to do with a history of portraying black men as sexual predators with uncontrollable sexual desires.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Still on even footing with romney.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Still on even footing with romney.
I think it's pretty clear that many Republicans really really really would rather have an alternative to Romney.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: And they say republicans aren't in favor of stimulus packages...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder where the most recent polling has Cain.
Still on even footing with romney.
I think it's pretty clear that many Republicans really really really would rather have an alternative to Romney.
On political review, the analysis indicated that that so little of the republican core really wants to settle on Romney, and that's why this whole primary circus is still going; they want a candidate they can really fall in love with, and they have to go through the motions of loving a character because they really 'speak to the base' then falling out of love with them because they would lose to Obama and probably are also crazy.
But the alternative is settling for Romney! He did this stuff that was like Obamacare! And he's a Mormon! Him being a mormon really weirds out a third to a fifth of conservatives to the point where they are too uncomfortable at present to say that they would vote for him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the non-Romneys were smart, two of them would team up into a P/VP team and try to consolidate a split base into a single movement.
I read an article awhile back that said if Palin was smart, she'd throw her support behind Perry, which would re-invigorate his campaign and make her relevant again since she sort of forced herself into the realm of common players by bowing out of the race.
Theoretically, with only a quarter of Republican voters willing to support Romney at any given time, any one of the other "real conservatives" (not Huntsman) should be able to sweep most of the rest of the vote if there was only one of them, and if that vote wasn't split four or five ways.
I still think interesting things could happen in January if some candidates drop out fast. Romney is going to win a plurality in most early states because the rest of the vote is so divided, but, once they drop out, we'll see who the support flows to. If it becomes a two or three man race by Super Tuesday, Romney's 25-30% won't be enough to push him over the top. It might even come down to some deal making for spare delegates floating around if the spread is really that wide.
We're down to it now. Only really a month and a half for polls to really move, which means Cain might have the right timing and momentum if he can get through this scandal. There's not a lot of time for another swapittydo in the frontrunnership.
If everyone holds on with their teeth and refuses to drop out, Romney will win with a plurality. If people like Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman drop off fast, and then one of the other biggies like Paul, someone could pull ahead and stay there. Timing is going to be key.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is... is Michelle Bachmann still running? Are you sure? Huh.
But seriously, why is she still running?
But seriously serious now: Lyr or Samp or some other political news junkie, is there a reason people follow polls instead of intrade? From what I've read (which is admittedly not a great deal), intrade is vastly more reliable at predicting presidential and nominee outcomes, yet everyone always cites this poll or that poll that shows oh my god X Terrible Candidate is the frontrunner he could win the nomi— oh wait no he imploded but look at Terrible Candidate Y people love them an— wait they said what? And so on.
Is it just because this is more exciting and polls feel more like you're getting the pulse of the people? (And not just a random selection of a couple hundred shlubs with zero skin in the game and who could say anything at any time for any reason)
[ November 07, 2011, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
Speaking of tag-teams, at least one pundit likes the idea of Cain/Gingrich. It boggles my mind.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Republican Iowa Caucuses work differently than the Democratic counterpart: the GOP doesn't use the 15% viability and regrouping rules--it's just a secret ballot (generally speaking). In 2008, Team Obama worked hard to recruit caucus goers who had supported Dodd/Biden/Edwards/Richardson/Kucinich in the early rounds, so they were able to organize an anti-Clinton snowball right then and there in the individual precincts. Such a strategy is not available to those looking to be the anti-Romney.
The other thing to watch is who Congressman Steve King endorses. He represents the more conservative, western portion of Iowa, where Romney actually carried some counties in 2008. King spent much of the summer palling around with Bachmann and has flirted some with Perry, and is seen by many in the political media as a representative of the Tea Party.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But seriously serious now: Lyr or Samp or some other political news junkie, is there a reason people follow polls instead of intrade? From what I've read (which is admittedly not a great deal), intrade is vastly more reliable at predicting presidential and nominee outcomes, yet everyone always cites this poll or that poll that shows oh my god X Terrible Candidate is the frontrunner he could win the nomi— oh wait no he imploded but look at Terrible Candidate Y people love them an— wait they said what? And so on.
Is it just because this is more exciting and polls feel more like you're getting the pulse of the people? (And not just a random selection of a couple hundred shlubs with zero skin in the game and could say anything at any time for any reason)
InTrade, in my view, is a good solid distillation of the conventional wisdom at any given moment. Looking at the chart for the Republican nomination for 2008, Giuliani led right up until the end of December, and McCain didn't shoot up until the lead up to New Hampshire as more of the establishment fell in line behind him. So, yeah, I'd be willing to believe what InTrade says on January 2nd, and one really doesn't want to get excited about any single poll, but it doesn't express any special insight.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would intrade work without polls?
I mean first of all, it's fairly self-selecting. People go to Intrade rather than Intrade going to them, so I don't think it's nearly as representative. Second, where do intraders get their information from?
I think it's also interesting to note how Intrade bobs and weaves depending on what is happening at large. You say they are the best predictor of what will happen, but at what point? The day of the election? Six months before? How valuable is that?
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
Lyrhawn: Exactly. InTrade bettors might also take into account commentary by folks like Nate Silver, Ben Smith, Andrew Sullivan, et al, but from what I've seen InTrade prices are driven by polls, election results, stories that break through the chatter, and inside-the-beltway groupthink.
Another problem with InTrade is that it is, theoretically, open in manipulation--someone with enough money could drive a certain candidate's shares higher in hopes of driving positive stories in the media.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That was what I first thought too, Lyr, but then you have examples like Cain never rising above, what, 10%? Compared to Romney's consistently staying well above 50%? According to pollsters and some pundits, Cain really had a shot for a minute there, but it doesn't really seem intrade bought it.
Again, I'm absolutely not an expert on the subject, was just curious what your take on it might be. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think, for your benefit, we need to find some sort of summary "The people who want you to misunderstand and distrust the methodology of polls, and why" article somewhere.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay. Fair warning: I'm usually pretty mistrustful of articles that say "X people want you to think Y thing because it helps them to achieve Z hidden agenda!!!!"
Also I don't actually mistrust polls very much. Oh, I might react with skepticism to a single poll that seems totally counter to what I'd previously seen/heard/read, but I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. The only thing re: polls that really bothers me has nothing to do with the methodology of the polls themselves. I just wish articles were more open about the margins of error in a given poll and the exact questions being asked on said poll, because a lot of times writers will interpret polls a way that is wildly different than another person looking at the exact same poll would interpret it. Then they publish their interpretation as proven by the poll.
But, polls themselves are neutral. The margins of error are determined using basic statistics, and I have nothing against that at all!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can usually find the raw polling data online somewhere if you really want to look, though it depends on the polling agency. Most of the time you can find the margin of error information too.
Some of it you have to look for, which can be a chore.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh for sure! Again, I'm not criticizing polls or pollsters here! Just that oftentimes someone citing a poll in an article fails to mention little details like that there's a +/-10% margin of error or that the poll is counting anything from "Lean X" to "Strongly X" as "X" and there is no "Undecided" option. The polls themselves include this data, but if you are, say, reading an article in the Wall Street Journal, they may not mention it, and it can pretty drastically change what the poll actually tells you.
So, TL;DR Polls are like guns. Neutral tools in themselves but can be misused by people with their own goals, so it's good to have one yourself. Okay that analogy sucked at the end, whatever, close enough.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Talking to voters in SC, woman says she won't vote for Romney 'because he's a Muslim.'
Muslormon. Who can really tell the difference anyway?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The important thing is that they're (1) definitely not Christian and (2) do we really need a (2)?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Interesting. I remember once in the 6th grade or so, somebody said to me: "you're a Christan right?" And when I said no, she said: "well then what are you?" as if a white person can only be a Christian. But then, this was San Francisco, where being a Christian is like being in the church of England. Not omething to get excited about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know that it is even a matter of actual religious beliefs. I think it is a case of "not one of us".
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Talking to voters in SC, woman says she won't vote for Romney 'because he's a Muslim.'
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't know that it is even a matter of actual religious beliefs. I think it is a case of "not one of us".
I'm reminded of the Heffalump song from one of the Winnie the Pooh movies Tiptoe is currently in love with...
quote:Everyone knows what a heffalump's like It's got fiery eyes and a tail with a spike With claws on its paws that are sharp as a tack And wing-a-ma-things coming out of its back
'Cause its bottom is up and its top's really down So its nose is its tail or the other way 'round Yeah, and it's wide as a river and tall as a tree Imagine gigantic And times it by three
It clomps here and there It stomps to and fro It's got three horns above And eleven below And those are its good points There's much more to know About the dreadfully dreaded Thoroughly three-headed Horribly hazardous Heffalumps
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Muslormon. Who can really tell the difference anyway?
Yeah, all I've got ... is maybe there's some usage of "Muslim" floating around that is along the lines of "religion that shares a base of Judaism and Christianity, but includes new revelations and/or prophets." But even that might be having too much confidence in people and they are just as likely to call Taoists and Buddhists, Muslims.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Poor Herman Cain. If he had been a Democrat, nobody would have cared about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is only a big deal when a Republican does it.
HA! Oh, weepin' creepin' Jesus.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Wait, someone seriously said that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Someone' did indeed!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I wondered when someone was going to mention that 'someone' said that. (Seriously - it made me smile in a kind of 'oh, dear, no' kind of way).
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I'm always shocked by his political writing. Not that he holds opinions that differ from mine, but that his current events writing is so unpersuasive and lacking in intellectual honesty. It's hard to believe it's the same guy.
It's possible (unlikely but possible) that it's all a setup for Cain, but even if that were true, it wouldn't have anything to do with how "the left" feels about conservative blacks. "The left" would love for Herman Cain to be the nominee. "The left" would have held on to this story for at least another six months if the attack was politically motivated. A contested GOP primary is good for democrats, and this will be old news in the general election if Cain is nominated.
On the other hand, if it is some sort of elaborate setup, the possibility of a primary rival (Romney or whoever hopes to be the not-Romney) or some republican power brokers concerned about Cain seem much more likely.
You can argue that democratic voters didn't care about Bill Clinton's womanizing/harassment, but I heard all about those behaviors, even from "the media". I think democratic voters care less about sexual behavior than republican voters. As a result you rarely hear "family values" type of rhetoric from democrats, so the political crime of hypocrisy is avoided.
For the record, I don't think it's a setup. I think news outlets are running with a potential sex scandal because that's what they always do whenever there's any evidence of it at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Is this 'someone' who I think it is?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Everyone watch the debate tonight. It's at my alma mater!
My little undergrad institution will now be forever known as "that school where the 50th GOP debate was held." Always nice to get national recognition.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I do have to give Herman Cain credit, he said he would do a polygraph test. I think he shouldn't say it, he should just do it and get it over with.
I actually doubt Beliak's story. The acts she described pass the line of sexual harrassment and cross into sexual assault. Forcing your hand up someone's skirt and grabbing a woman's head and trying to force it down into where it shouldn't be is not just harrassment. What woman would calmly tell the guy afterwards, "I have a boyfriend." and then ask the guy for a ride home? Most women would probably fight, get out of the car, and call the police.
She has stated she will not take a lie detector test, something Cain has said he will do. I'm starting to believe she just came up with this story to make the rounds on National news channels and get a quick buck.
I don't know enough about the other accusers. It is often cheaper for large corporations to pay someone off than it is to pay a lawyer $500 an hours to defend the company in court. I believe someone said that one of the accusers was angry because Cain left a dinner and left the accuser with a massive bar tab.
If Cain is truly innocent, he should just go take a polygraph test and be done with it. It wouldn't get him completely off the hook, but it would help him in the eyes of voters. Many people still believe polygraphs are infallible. If he truly believes he did nothing wrong, the polygraph wouldn't really be able to say whether or not he is lying about the harrassment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Poor Herman Cain. If he had been a Democrat, nobody would have cared about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is only a big deal when a Republican does it.
HA! Oh, weepin' creepin' Jesus.
My initial response was to think about Democrats who were chased out of office for sexual harassment. I haven't come up with one yet, and it's kind of bothering me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anthony Weiner is gone from memory already?
Geraine, Not to comment on her credibility (which I agree is shaky) but you would be surprised at how many women (and men, too) respond to sexual assault especially from a person in authority. There is an instinct to downplay, to avoid rather than confront, to "keep things friendly". Even to be polite rather than risk the assault becoming angry and violent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't know enough about the other accusers. It is often cheaper for large corporations to pay someone off than it is to pay a lawyer $500 an hours to defend the company in court. I believe someone said that one of the accusers was angry because Cain left a dinner and left the accuser with a massive bar tab.
This is in my experience a myth. If a company starts paying out large sums to anyone who makes an accusation, they encourage lots of accusations. Normally, a company will generally not offer to settle out of court if the claims are consider frivolous.
There is also a myth that sexual harassment charges will automatically ruin a man's future. Which given that Clarence Thomas sits on the supreme court and Bill Clinton was not force from office is pretty ridiculous.
Around the time of the Clarence Thomas hearings, women I know started talking about their experiences with sexual harassment and I was really surprised that almost every woman had a story to tell. Almost every woman I know has been in a work situation where there was some sort of sexual harassment. And none of the women who shared these stories with me filed or threatened law suits or even made official complaints.
Given what I've seen, I think the probability that an innocent man would be accused of harassment by 3 separate women is extremely unlikely. The idea that a company would pay large sums to several women based on frivolous claims of sexual harassment from one man is just not credible.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As was discussed in detail in a rape thread, sometimes men believe they did nothing wrong yet they still committed rape. It is entirely possible Cain believes what he did was fine when he was in fact way over the line.
Women are trained in our society to be polite and kind. Unfortunately, this means they sit by and take a lot of crap. My most recent example is fairly minor in offence but still freaked me out. My daughter was eating lunch at preschool. The kids at the table started spitting goldfish at her. She went and told the teacher but being a 4 year old, she mumbled and all the teacher got was the other kids are being bad. So the teacher said go sit down. My daughter went and sat down and just sat there as the little brats filled her hair with goldfish and spit. Didn't say anything, didn't protect herself and was horrified when we suggested other responses because then she would have broken the rules. People don't always defend themselves the way we think they should.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, I made the mistake of getting curious and reading the latest OSC political snippet.
quote:And if a Republican who is also black ever actually did anything, the racists of the Left will get rid of him as fast as they can, because he doesn't fit their racial stereotype of what all black people have to be.
Any black person who doesn't fit their racial profile is a constant contradiction of the Leftist fantasy of blacks who all need to be "saved" by white liberals.
Poor Herman Cain. There's no room for any kind of mistake or ambiguity in the private life of a Republican, especially an African-American, who wants to run for President.
This is the dumbest thing I've read in months. I am not being hyperbolic. This is indefensibly dumb. Look at it. I don't even have to add much to it.
quote:My initial response was to think about Democrats who were chased out of office for sexual harassment. I haven't come up with one yet, and it's kind of bothering me.
You forgot Weiner's Weiner? What about Eliot Spitzer? David Wu was forced from office, too. Kwame Kilpatrick probably also counts, but like with Herman Cain, the sexual scandal is ultimately irrelevant in the face of pretty much everything else about him as a candidate. Gary Condit?
That said, let's think about the implication. If the Republicans are getting the lion's share of the truly odious or hilariously bad sexual scandals — wide stances, trying to get it on with underage staffers, or what have you — gee, I wonder why it's so easy to think of so many more pushed from office from that side of the aisle.
The case that qualitatively similar cases of sexual harassment or abuse or affair are just 'forgiven' by the immoral miscreant Liberals is not an easy one to substantiate. Not that OSC is really interested in trying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kwame doesn't count. He was run out of office for being a ridiculous over the top crook. The sexual misconduct was just window dressing.
Rabbit -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the Clinton/Lewinsky issue being one of sexual harassment. Wasn't she a willing participant?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If we're talking purely sexual harassment, of the sort where it is the politician harassing individuals, as opposed to just any sex scandal, that might ... leave the Republicans holding even more of the share of available contemporary political examples. I think you can still count in Clinton on that part, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
She was still a subordinate, and many workplaces will consider that sexual harassment even if she does not consider herself to have been coerced.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You forgot Weiner's Weiner? What about Eliot Spitzer? David Wu was forced from office, too. Kwame Kilpatrick probably also counts, but like with Herman Cain, the sexual scandal is ultimately irrelevant in the face of pretty much everything else about him as a candidate. Gary Condit?
Hey- don't forgot that Vitter liberal democrat of Louisiana is still serving despite his dalliance with prostitutes. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Kwame doesn't count. He was run out of office for being a ridiculous over the top crook. The sexual misconduct was just window dressing.
Rabbit -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the Clinton/Lewinsky issue being one of sexual harassment. Wasn't she a willing participant?
Ummm... are you forgetting Paula Jones? I mean, if we're talking about settlements being proof of something there, Clinton paid Jones almost a million dollars to make her allegations of sexual harassment go away (pretty gnarly harassment to, if one believes her side of things.) The focus moved to Lewinsky because Clinton lied about sleeping with her while he was testifying re: Jones, but that's not where the accusations of sexual harassment originated. Edit: I don't really want to make this about Clinton. Hell, I'm the one who mentions presumption of innocence in this very post. I just wanted to clarify that Rabbit is absolutely right to lump Clinton into the group of guys that prove sexual harassment allegations are not automatically a career ender.
The only other thing I would add is that you can't make up for in volume what you lack in truth. The simple fact that there are now three allegations against Cain doesn't mean he loses his presumption of innocence, in my opinion. The thing that weirded me out the most was Gloria Allred cracking a joke about the alleged harassment ("his version of a stimulus package") and the victim smirking at said joke.
All that being said, I also think Scholarette makes a great point that some form of harassment could have occurred, and Cain could simply not see it as harassment.
[ November 09, 2011, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Hey- don't forgot that Vitter liberal democrat of Louisiana is still serving despite his dalliance with prostitutes.
Another brave man who is trying to save marriage from the gay agenda.
::salute::
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Anthony Weiner is gone from memory already?
I specifically discarded Weiner an example because his problem wasn't sexual harassment, it was infidelity.
Spitzer was booking prostitutes. Wu would normally count, but lets be honest, the man is also insane.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
By the way, did everyone catch some of the delightful nuggets from the debate tonight? First off, this was by far the best moderated debate I've maybe ever seen. I've never seen moderators stick so closely to forcing candidates to answer questions and in provoking genuine debate between candidates. Every time a candidate pivoted to his stump speech, Maria stopped him or her and asked the question until the candidate provided some sort of answer. It was awesome.
I felt Herman Cain had a strong debate. His answers were crisp, clean, snarky in all the right places, and fairly clever at times too. I mean, most of what he was saying was just as much bull as everyone else, but he was never flustered, his delivery was clean and smooth, and perhaps most importantly, the crowd appeared to be behind him 100% regardless of the question, to the point of booing the moderators when they asked about the allegations. Maybe that's why his poll numbers haven't dipped much.
Huntsman gave a couple fantastic answers, and I really enjoyed the confused look on Perry's face during one of them when Huntsman said "efficacious." I wish they'd allowed him to speak more, continues to be my favorite Republican. In particular I loved his answer on China. He explained perfectly why China is doing a hundred unfair things to us, but why starting a trade war with them would be both useless and damaging.
It's sad that, statistically, he and I are polling even in the presidential race right now when you consider the margin of error.
Dan -
I DID forget about Paula Jones, my bad.
And yeah, Cain's joke was...an interesting choice given the position he's in, but then, I found Allred's joke just as distasteful.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I specifically discarded Weiner an example because his problem wasn't sexual harassment, it was infidelity.
You wouldn't characterize e-mailing pictures of oneself (or parts of oneself) in a state of undress to someone who did not ask for said pictures as a form of harassment?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's possible BlackBlade wasn't aware of the whole situation. Most people remember there were pictures, some people forget that he was sending them to young women over the internet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, people are going to get on Perry's butt about how he forgot which third government system he wants to throw on the corpse pile, right alongside our schools!
As usual, it's hilarious how the issue isn't how he wants to pull a ghoulish Thatcher/Major-style privatization hack job on government, it's that he's brainfarting one of three targets on his list during a high-stress debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The gaffe was just particularly amusing, though I will say, you know it's one thing to misspeak or randomly forget a data point or statistic...but when you want to close down whole government departments, you should really remember which ones they are. That's kind of a big deal.
I enjoyed how much the other candidates were trying to help him out though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Paul was helpful for that specific kind of thing! Like a Clippy of horrible, horrible, horrible conservative ideas.
"I see you're trying to dismantle governmental social programs and regulation. Would you like some targets?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So, people are going to get on Perry's butt about how he forgot which third government system he wants to throw on the corpse pile, right alongside our schools!
Yep, because before the Department of Education was created in 1980 there were no public schools!
But yeah Perry's blanking on an entire department he wants to get rid of was pretty hilaribad. I'm going to assume he was failing to remember the Department of Energy, because it's sort of the target du jour for most Republicans. If there's one thing us conservatives hate more than schools and the economy, it's electricity. Dark Ages all the way!
Sam, you just killed me with your Ron Paul-as-Clippy comment. Perfect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yep, because before the Department of Education was created in 1980 there were no public schools!
The Department of Education, for all its flaws, is a great thing for people like Perry to get out of the way to continue their wholeheartedly destructive tendencies for "reforming" the educational system. Peeking behind the graft curtains to look at the effects that Perry's administration has had on Texas schools so far should provide ample evidence that his incompetence goes well beyond just trying to convince people that Texas schools teach creationism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I didn't say anything about Perry being a competent person to dismantle the Dept of Education and mitigate any negative consequences (or that he wouldn't use doing so as an excuse to intentionally create what I see as terrible consequences, like teaching creationism in schools). I just felt it was a little disingenuous to imply that believing the Dept of Education shouldn't exist is the same thing as wanting to destroy schools in general.
And by a little disingenuous, I might mean a lot disingenuous. Except it was also rhetorical hyperbole (your specialty! Okay that should probably read our specialty) so I think I'll stick with a little disingenuous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure Perry doesn't think he's trying to butcher education, much the same way I'm sure John Major didn't think he was trying to butcher rail.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The only other thing I would add is that you can't make up for in volume what you lack in truth. The simple fact that there are now three allegations against Cain doesn't mean he loses his presumption of innocence, in my opinion.
This would be a valid point IF we were talking about criminal charges. When a person is facing prison time and other serious penalties, it is proper to err on the side of mercy and treat them as innocent until their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But we aren't talking about whether Cane should go to prison, we are talking about whether he should be President of the US. The standards should be different. If you think a history sexual harassment is relevant to being President, then you shouldn't simply be asking whether the man has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to sexually harass people -- you should be asking whether there is a reasonable doubt of his integrity on this issue.
In my mind at least, the multiple independent accusations which were accompanied by sizable settlements, are enough to cause serious concern about Cain's innocence. With that kind of history, I would be concerned about hiring him to work in my department. It wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker but it would certainly warrant further investigation.
When seeking the most powerful position in the world, a person does not deserve to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you want to be President, it is your job to prove you are qualified for the job not your opponents job to prove you aren't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I just felt it was a little disingenuous to imply that believing the Dept of Education shouldn't exist is the same thing as wanting to destroy schools in general.
In theory you are correct, but in practice everyone I know who supports eliminating the Department of Education also favors gutting the public school system in general.
*edited to add that I recognize that many of the people who are in favor of gutting the public education believe that the private sector will actually do a better job. Those people are simply wrong. I don't see the difference between people who want to destroy education and people who want to do things that will destroy education as being all that important.
[ November 10, 2011, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd like to understand why you think the private sector can't do education better. Maybe in another thread?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'd like to understand why you think the private sector can't do education better. Maybe in another thread?
A lot of it hangs on how you define "better".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The private sector probably can do education better. For those that can pay for it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
When I heard Perry I laughed. I laughed again this morning when I heard that he said it would help him since people could relate with him and that it "makes him seem more human."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ouch. Not a good debater. Sad that a bad hiccup like that impacts his campaign status. Glad it does, however.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's a very optimistic way to look at it, Rakeesh. I like it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I don't. I think it's a deeply stupid way to select Presidents for a nation as large and complicated as ours, to have the colors of ties and the kind of cheesesteak one likes even be within a cannon shot of a stone's throw of relevance even for the briefest moment.
More one of those 'there's something worthwhile, somewhere, in even the most awful things sometimes.'
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
To clarify, what I like is your optimism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It was a good move for Romney to attempt to bailout Perry. Even if his suggestion was not what Perry was looking for, it demonstrates he is not absolutely cut-throat on becoming president.
I'm not very happy about him having such a great shot at becoming president, but his discipline this year has been almost perfect. Santorum deserves similar kudos. I don't think this is his year, but if he continues to work, I think he will put together a very powerful campaign maybe next cycle.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It was a good move for Romney to attempt to bailout Perry. Even if his suggestion was not what Perry was looking for, it demonstrates he is not absolutely cut-throat on becoming president.
Or it demonstrates that he knows that Perry just nuked his own campaign, and now has the opportunity to look magnanimous in victory. You'll notice that Perry's other opponents (Cain, Bachmann, etc) have given similarly "sympathetic" statements in the wake of Perry's gaffe.
In other words, there comes a point when a candidate is so obviously dead in the water that it becomes politically beneficial for his opponents to say nice things about him. Perry jumped that boundary and then some, last night. He's no longer a candidate for president. He's an object of pity for the candidates who are left.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tarrsk: Perhaps, but Romney made his move in that moment, not after the debate. It appears more genuine when done in that manner.
Romney could have kept silent like the other candidates. Well, Ron Paul basically said, "I dream every night of killing all the government agencies, what three were you thinking of sissy?"
Romney could certainly be feigning a charitable nature, but being able to fake it is still counted to one's benefit more so than those who keep silent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And now the Cain campaign thinks they've found the source of one of the accusations, but they've got the wrong Kraushaar.
I'm starting to think they are trying to handle this all wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:He's an object of pity for the candidates who are left.
He's an object of pity with a big bank account, and don't think they don't all know that. That money has to go somewhere, and I'm pretty sure campaign finance law prohibits it from going directly back into his gubernatorial campaign fund.
That means he'll either be giving it away, or giving it all to his re-election PAC, if it exists.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
My grandmother consistently voted for President solely by whom she thought was the most handsome. Seriously. That was her only consideration. (She particularly loved Clinton, and also I think Reagan.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It has always surprised me that more politicians are not good looking. There are many incredibly ugly, extremely successful politicians world-wide.
I wonder whether most people actually vote the opposite to your grandmother - they see really, really amazingly good looking people as likely to be dim, or untrustworthy, (or just wonder whether there is more to life).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess in a way there is something good about the way our campaigning setup works. I mean, the ways in which we as a society end up deciding who to vote for are certainly very often stupid.
But on the other hand, I suppose it's useful to be able to say about someone, "Well, he can't manage to jump through these ridiculous hoops well enough to please us. If he can't do that..."
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather people cared about more important things, but I guess there's some value to be wrung out of it? Maybe?
My grandmother consistently voted for President solely by whom she thought was the most handsome. Seriously. That was her only consideration. (She particularly loved Clinton, and also I think Reagan.)
It's no worse than people who vote for the guy who has a better sounding name.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
I wonder whether most people actually vote the opposite to your grandmother - they see really, really amazingly good looking people as likely to be dim, or untrustworthy, (or just wonder whether there is more to life).
I believe studies consistently show attractiveness correlates with the perception of competence. Good looking people are generally happier, better liked and more successful due in large part to how they are perceived.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
People won't vote for men with facial hair.
I refuse to shave.
I'll never be elected Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:I believe studies consistently show attractiveness correlates with the perception of competence. Good looking people are generally happier, better liked and more successful due in large part to how they are perceived.
That's the weird thing - that while this appears to be true in most areas of life, in politics it appears not to make the slightest bit of difference to success whether you are attractive or not.
Lyr - run for office in Spain. Both presidential (okay, they're really prime ministerial) candidates standing this week are middle aged beardies. In fact, apart from a height difference, they're almost identical.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That's the weird thing - that while this appears to be true in most areas of life, in politics it appears not to make the slightest bit of difference to success whether you are attractive or not.
Well it's not the *only* factor, but it does actually matter in politics. I'm struggling to recall where I first read about it (Freakonomics?) but I know that it was specifically addressed with regards to candidates for political office.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It would also introduce a strong bias into the pool of qualified candidates, as non-political advancement leads to possibilities of political advancement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone watching the debate tonight?
Most of it is just standard GOP talking points, but a couple things jumped out at me:
1. Santorum's response to who would be advising him in the White House boils down to (and he repeated it three times): I will only ever have people working for me that absolutely agree with me 100%. Well, nice to know he'll consider all sides of an issue before he calls the play.
2. Huntsman gets the shaft. I mean seriously, they only gave him three questions and on two of them they cut him off after 30 seconds. And one of those was on China, on which he is the expert out of the people on the stage! It's absolutely ridiculous what short shrift he is given.
He reaffirmed for me, by the way, that he by far my favorite GOP candidate.
In general there seems to be this view amongst the GOP candidates on foreign policy that American can simply snap its fingers and make happen whatever we want. Obama's failures are failures of will, rather than failures of political reality. It's an incredibly unnuanced view of the world that doesn't take into account that that other countries have their own agendas, and that we can't simply tell people what to do, no matter how much we might want to. It's very troubling.
Also, there's an overwhelming desire to send spies and other covert operatives into the Middle East to do all sorts of regime change and sabotage. I'm not against that in principle, but geez, their enthusiasm is cause for concern.
I enjoyed the Perry jokes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In general there seems to be this view amongst the GOP candidates on foreign policy that American can simply snap its fingers and make happen whatever we want. Obama's failures are failures of will, rather than failures of political reality.
I sense a narrative convenient to the most obstructionist political entity in American history!
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
I haven't been watching the debates, but some friends invited us to come over and watch with them. It was nice to see differences of opinion about Afghanistan and Pakistan. I was, um, amused that most of them are assuming that Obama's sitting around the White House thinking, "Golly, Iran might get a nuclear weapon soon . . . too bad I lack the will to do anything."
Huntsman's answer where he pivoted to the 21st century and away from Iraq/AfPak blew me away. I really wouldn't mind him being Secretary of State after Clinton steps down, but I don't see it happening.
Was it Romney who kept repeating stuff about Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul II?
Fortunately, the kid woke up and wanted to go home about the same time everyone (except Ron Paul, mercifully) started defending waterboarding.
It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The email basically bluntly states that Bachmann, as a single digit candidate, will not be asked a lot of questions, and is basically irrelevant.
Justifiably, she's pretty pissed about that.
I understand where they are coming from with this. Frontrunners should get more focus and criticism because they are more likely to be the nominee...but isn't the whole point of a primary season, especially one this long with this many debate, to give every candidate a chance to fully flesh out his or her ideas and positions? Huntsman got a grand total of two minutes of air time in a 90 minute debate about his personal forte in policy. Why even allow him to be there? For all the secondary candidate, why even have them on the stage if all you're going to do is ask them one or two questions just for the sake of "fairness" and then focus all your attention on the top two or three.
Debates move polls as much as polls move debates. Maybe if other candidates had a chance to speak, they'd move higher in the polls, and thus become relevant.
Again, I get their point, and I might even agree with it if there were only a couple debates, but for the love of God, this was like the TENTH debate. In 12+ hours of debates, there isn't time to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak?
If they aren't going to be allowed to talk, they should end the charade and just invite the top three percentage people in the polls, and stop pretending this is really a debate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wouldn't try to cram them all in every debate. I'd take 3-4 of them, and rotate them through a series of debates. We'd have to host more debates so that everybody got a chance to debate everybody at least once, but we'd get better dialogue.
[ November 14, 2011, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
As a registered republican who hates NEOCONs, I am absolutely loving Huntsman and agree he got shafted on China. I wish the Mormons backed him instead of Romney.
quote:I understand where they are coming from with this. Frontrunners should get more focus and criticism because they are more likely to be the nominee...but isn't the whole point of a primary season, especially one this long with this many debate, to give every candidate a chance to fully flesh out his or her ideas and positions?
I am particularly perturbed that Paul only got 90 seconds. His fundraising and polling is second tier, and he should be given more time then Santorum and some other candidates. Plus, the republicans need non-intervention ideas injected back in the debates.
At least he reaffirmed that water-boarding is torture and torture is illegal. We need to hear that more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At least he reaffirmed that water-boarding is torture and torture is illegal. We need to hear that more.
I think that's one of those things that goes into the category of 'things you cannot say and still remain viable as a conservative candidate' but I could be wrong.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
True but sad. Why the small government party thinks gross abuse of civil rights is ok is beyond me. However, that does not change the fact that he polls much higher and has raised much more money then Santorum. It is absolute manipulation that Santorum got 5 questions and Paul got 89 seconds.
Grrr...arrrgh.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I wouldn't say "absolute manipulation." Paul is a crappy politician, no matter how much certain people like him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's kind of a weird answer. "I don't agree with Obama...but I would have done most of the same things he did, though possibly for different reasons, but I don't know those reasons because I haven't seen the evidence."
And then he ends the whole thing by saying it's impossible to judge what Obama did because unless he has all the facts, it's impossible to know. Funny, that doesn't stop him from criticizing Obama on any number of other things, though in fairness, Cain has avoided foreign policy like Typhoid Mary at a kissing booth.
His final conclusion is funny. His basic criticism is that HE would have gauged the opposition movement, which leaves the impression that Obama didn't. When pressed, he clarifies that he doesn't know if Obama did or not, because he doesn't have the information.
One wonders if his foreign policy answers have as much to do with is falling poll numbers as his scandal. In other news Newt Gingrich is the current top contender for the Anybody But Romney sweepstakes. If you take Perry's and Cain's numbers and give them to Newt, he wins over Romney in a landslide.
I really wonder if Cain won't just drop out after he gets crushed in New Hampshire. The story would be so much more effective if (as he will) Romney wins New Hampshire and then Newt comes back to crush him in the next handful of states before Nevada. But that's unlikely to happen if Cain and Perry continue to split the vote.
It appears Gingrich won the game of hot potato. Whoever is the current favorite when the elections start has the best chance of beating Romney, and it looks like Gingrich is going to be that guy. I don't think we have enough time, or a likely candidate to turn to, to pass off Gingrich's support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To take a detour away from the GOP for a moment, since this is an issue we'll be discussing more as the primaries fade away and the general looms, it's interesting to take a look at congressional elections and how they are shaping up. A key indicator of how an election season is going is fundraising. Commentators like to use it as a bellwether of enthusiasm to gauge the national mood (or at least the mood of donors and volunteers).
Fundraising has surged for congressional Democrats, and has dropped off a cliff for Republican freshman congressmen, many of whom were elected to traditionally Democratic leaning districts on the wave of anti-incumbent sentiment in 2010. Those seats were always going to be hard to defend en masse, especially with so many of them tracking so far to the Tea Party line that got them there. People like Scott Brown have been smart enough to tack to the left every now and then, knowing that just because they are pissed, Massachusetts isn't going to become a red state just because Brown is there.
A year out, these could be worrying signs for GOP freshmen, who need to raise staggering sums in a short amount of time on a weekly basis from a small pool of donors in order to be viable candidates every two years.
For all the GOP's talk of taking the Senate, this election might be shaping up as one where they have to fight just as hard to hold onto the House.
Posted by crozierr (Member # 12667) on :
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
They don't even have to be recent lol, his positions don't change, and he speaks the truth. always.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, the fact that he sounds like a broken record not withstanding, the reason you ask people like Paul and Huntsman those questions is to force the other candidates to actually DEBATE them.
Otherwise it's an echo chamber.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by crozierr:
quote:Originally posted by talsmitde: It would've been nice to see more answers from Huntsman and Paul. Cain and Santorum's answers tended to be more painful than anything.
They don't even have to be recent lol, his positions don't change, and he speaks the truth. always.
Paul's best shot is Iowa. The Republican caucus process doesn't have viability requirements, nor a majority of attendees requirement to get the delegates from the precincts. It's just a plurality from the secret ballot. That said-- looking at the particulars of the polling data in Iowa--Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain are all higher than Paul as a second choice. I'd imagine that if the Cain supporters felt that Cain wouldn't get the most votes in their precinct (which has been becoming more likely), that they would vote for Gingrich before Paul. But the thing that might help Paul is the unfettered passion that his supporters have for him. That passion is particularly useful in a caucus.
Paul has no shot in New Hampshire.
As an aside, looking at the polling data, 23% of respondents in the New Hampshire poll said that the allegations of sexual harassment against Cain have made them more likely to support him. The question didn't ask if they appreciated his handling of the allegations, it was simply whether the allegations have made them more supportive.
...What?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Vadon: If you don't believe the charges are true, then the allegations are an vicious attack on a candidate. If you felt some support for them, then standing up with them against the media slur machine could be a natural reaction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Excellent. Back to the good old days!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think child labor laws mean or do what he thinks they mean or do.
You have to appreciate, though the inherent subtext in what he's saying - that poor children can only achieve a strong work ethic by getting jobs as young kids, that they couldn't get that work ethic from their poor parents, of course, or as teenagers.
And come on Newt! Recent polls have you way out in the front, as shocking as that is to believe. All you really have to do is SHUT UP for 45 days and you might get to be the nominee!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:"I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash; they'd have pride in the schools. They'd begin the process of rising."
But in the meantime, all our unionized janitors who are living large and lucky, will have to find other jobs. What a solution!
[ November 21, 2011, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My dad is a school janitor. There's nothing luxurious about it, at least not at the school he works at.
And for that matter, it involves so much heavy lifting, you'd probably have to have to hire three kids to replace each janitor just to do the work. It also involves heavy machinery depending on the size of the school.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Anyone who thinks kids (i.e. under about 14) could realistically replace school janitors has very little experience with kids or janitorial work.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's totally possible he knows nothing about janitorial work. Hey, I also know nothing about janitorial work. I assume it involves mopping and cleaning toilets and other stuff like that, because I dimly remember seeing janitors doing that stuff when I went to school. I imagine there's probably more difficult stuff too.
Logistically I think you guys are being too hard on the idea. He says you should keep an adult as a "master janitor" (presumably to do all the difficult machinery stuff? And if there's more of that than I assume there is, keep two!)
But I mean, some janitorial work is just cleaning stuff, right? Is there some reason a twelve year old couldn't do that? Aside from it being illegal and exploitative, I mean.
I think it's a bad thing that it is illegal (and enforced!) for a kid to, say, have a lemonade stand, or mow lawns, or clean gutters, or wash cars, do other random labor. Paper route not so much, since so few people still get the paper that I think most routes nowadays are huge and require a car. Papers are dying, and rightfully so, but people still have lawns and cars and thirsts.
I'm not saying I think kids should work 20 hours a week doing backbreaking labor, but I know that I appreciated being able to work for other people to get money when I was a kid, because my parents were often too strapped to give me money to buy stuff I was interested in. I think that giving kids the opportunity to do stuff like that is a good thing. Frankly, that's what it looks like he is saying. It's just much more exciting to imagine that he's desirous of setting up American sweat shops.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or the hours of janitorial work.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Newt's ability to convey the concept, "Do as I say, not as I do" is legendary. Seriously, the man's hypocrisy is this some sort of transcendent level of terrifying. When people say libertarians essentially believe, "Now that you've pulled me out of the water, lets pull up the rope" I think of Newt Gingrich. He is divorced several times, affairs being an open aspect of two instances, and tries to tell me about family values, as well as excusing his behavior under the guise of working too hard for his country.
He has said that politicians who took money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be tried in criminal court and locked up, nevermind he himself received over a million dollars in consulting fees, while simultaneously advising Republican law makers that they should support both organizations. Seriously, how could you make Newt Gingrich embody hypocrisy anymore than he does? I suppose the only way I can think of is if he said the world was over crowded and people should do something about it, whereupon he shoots somebody nearby in the head while simultaneously impregnating a prostitute.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think that giving kids the opportunity to do stuff like that is a good thing. Frankly, that's what it looks like he is saying. It's just much more exciting to imagine that he's desirous of setting up American sweat shops.
His principles on encouraging the bootstrappiness of the nation's youth are just flat-out retarded, and the janitorial example is noteworthy only as an apt, self-contained demonstration of that.
TO get detailed on the matter, I think the most concise answer as to whether or not his kids-do-the-cleaning idea has any merit (or sanity) is summed up in this persuasive essay. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That persuasive essay also really nails the realistic appraisal of Paul's chances at the presidency, by the by.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Cute.
I laughed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's the longer form of that essay, I guess. While I write it anyway
It's stuff like this that will get him eviscerated in the GOP debate tonight, if they even talk about it at all.
And it's stuff like this that would make him likely to win a landslide victory over Obama in the general.
Ugh.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just gonna toss this in here:
Oof. Some conservatives are tearing into Newt for taking a little more moderate stance on illegal immigration. To me the whole issue seems so absurd... the most common argument by far is essentially "We need to respect the rule of law, they are illegal immigrants, we should make them go home."
But good God our immigration laws are such a mess, I'd much rather simply make it much easier for immigrants to come here legally, so that the entire "Their first act in our country is to flout the law" line of reasoning evaporates, or fundamentally starts only applying to whatever small percentage of immigrants we legitimately don't want here for better reasons than just "They didn't win the lottery."
Humbug. There's your dose of "Don't forget Dan's actually a crazy anarcho-capitalist libertarian, not a crazy social conservative republican." Enjoy, I guess. Or not. Probably not. Back to work, in any case.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We need to respect the rule of law, they are illegal immigrants, we should make them go home.
That's a post-hoc rationalization. I doubt anyone who has ever said it obey's all traffic laws. I'm confident that most everyone who's ever said that is happy to break laws they consider stupid or inconvenient. If the law required them to be separated from their children or forbid them from working or driving a car or owning a home, I doubt they'd be arguing about respecting the rule of law.
We don't need to respect laws that are harmful. The US immigration laws are very harmful. The need to be radically reformed and those who have broken the existing stupid and harmful laws needed to given a route to legal residency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We should make all the illegal immigrants go back home. But at no point should we really specifically target the businesses and enterprises who make USE of the illegal immigrants as a subclass of human who will work for less pay. They make sure to give us a lot of campaign contributions, so that's right out. But we still need to look tough on brown people, so let's just make sure they feel really really persecuted whenever they set foot off of the strawberry plantations, or put their kids in school.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In case anyone is interested:
quote: Fiscal Bang for the Buck One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending Tax Cuts Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02 Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26 Temporary Tax Cuts Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29 Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03 Accelerated Depreciation 0.27 Permanent Tax Cuts Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48 Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29 Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37 Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30 Spending Increases Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64 Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73 Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36 Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59
While Newt's obviously the next anti-Romney-of-the-month, voting does start pretty soon, and with the holiday season now upon us, there will be less space for turnover in the Republican race.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, the GOP primary has turned into a game of musical chairs. All he has to do is stay seated for the next 30 days and hope that the others crash so spectacularly that they drop out early and fast so he can pick up the pieces.
He still has a chance. If Newt is smart, he'll start quietly courting his weaker competition and offering them something to drop out after the first three or four states when they come in in the single digits.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Can you even openly say you are reevaluating mid race and still claw your way back? I've never heard of it. Also these latest allegation seems to easily have the most traction.
I love the article ends with a comment made by his spokesman, about how it's all full steam ahead for Cain.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's amazing to me that someone like Cain could enter this race with these skeletons in his closet (assuming for a moment that the allegations are all more or less true). It is breathtakingly irresponsible, on a level with Clinton, or Edwards running for President, knowing that if certain events came to light, they would bring enormous pressure upon their administrations, and do untold damage to the political process.
That in itself is almost worse than committing an infidelity. People cheat for lots of reasons- but to place yourself above the needs of your nation and your government, is pure narcissism.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's amazing to me that someone like Cain could enter this race with these skeletons in his closet (assuming for a moment that the allegations are all more or less true). It is breathtakingly irresponsible, on a level with Clinton, or Edwards running for President, knowing that if certain events came to light, they would bring enormous pressure upon their administrations, and do untold damage to the political process.
That in itself is almost worse than committing an infidelity. People cheat for lots of reasons- but to place yourself above the needs of your nation and your government, is pure narcissism.
I'm with you. Practice what you preach. You can't be a person that speaks about family and moral values and then get caught having an affair or in a bathroom with a page.
I really hope Gingrich falls back down in the polls. To be honest I am surprised the media hasn't been throwing all of the dirt they have on him yet. Of course this is probably just a strategy. If they keep quiet for long enough and he gets the nomination, they can then release all of the dirt they have on him and make the republicans regret making him their candidate. (Insert Tin Foil Hat Emoticon here )
Didn't Newt hand his ex-wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer? Come on..
ETA: There is no Tin Foil Hat icon? I thought there was?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I actually saw NEWT speak when I was in college. I saw him in an auditorium type set up, but then again in a very small groups setting with basically him and about 30 students. I shook the man's hand and was actually dating a guy who got him to sign his T-shirt. (Yes, I have absolutely horrible, HORRIBLE taste in men.)
Here's the thing that scares me. When I sat in the room with him, I really thought he was the only sane politician in the country. I knew there were serious problems with alot of the things he said. I knew he had very questionable moral values. But somehow, I just didn't care, I was practically enthralled. He made all the problems look small and his answers seem just right. Even some Nader supporters were nodding their heads at times.
I've never had another politician give off that "happy glow" the way he did, not even others that I've seen in a similar small group setting.
So I'm a little scared. If he manages to charm the public just long enough to get elected, it could be a BIG PROBLEM.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Cain's out. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That was a pretty dramatic rise and fall. Can't remember the last time someone rose from obscurity that fast and crashed and burned just as quickly.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I actually saw NEWT speak when I was in college. I saw him in an auditorium type set up, but then again in a very small groups setting with basically him and about 30 students. I shook the man's hand and was actually dating a guy who got him to sign his T-shirt. (Yes, I have absolutely horrible, HORRIBLE taste in men.)
Really? Being a Republican ipso facto makes someone horrible? And a horrible partner?
There are no common interests more important than politics?
Edit: I'm just really baffled, and having a hard time wrapping my head around this. It's not an attitude I really understand. My partner is a quasi-libertarian like me, but she deeply disagrees with my minarchist/anarcho-capitalist leanings. My best friend is a self-described Socialist. The only member of my family I like is a pretty hardcore hippy (married to a guy with some hippy sensibilities, but who's job is genetically engineering "frankenfoods" and has worked for Monsanto, among other places). My boss (who is an awesome, brilliant lady) is a Democrat married to a Republican.
Putting so much value on political persuasion that a Newt-supporter gets characterized as a horrible human being is... pretty horrifying to me, actually. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I don't know about "horrible taste in men" on the whole, but it might be fair to say "bad choice."
I think I would have trouble dating a vocal, hard core supporter diametrically opposed to my beliefs. We'd either have to totally ignore politics, which isn't necessarily a problem, or we'd both be in fights, which is troublesome because I also like opinionated, strong women. That can easily be construed as "wait, so you like strong women, but not when they don't agree with you?" Sometimes. I have different sets of criteria for random people I talk to, friends, and significant others, and for SOs, why introduce more explosive variables than you need to? And sometimes opposing views are simply a turn off.
So yeah, for a liberal, someone being a conservative CAN be a deal breaker, but I'd never judge someone just for that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ... I shook the man's hand and was actually dating a guy who got him to sign his T-shirt. (Yes, I have absolutely horrible, HORRIBLE taste in men.)
Really? Being a Republican ipso facto makes someone horrible? And a horrible partner?
FWIW, I didn't read that as "Republican=horrible partner" full stop. I read it as "Hardcore Newt Gingrich supporter, to the extent that one would would get his signature on one's T-shirt=horrible partner"
Especially when it comes to picking a partner that one hopes is faithful to you, picking one that is so enthusiastic about a man with Gingrich's romantic history is kinda risky.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's unfair to judge a person who supports newt as a horrible individual. They might have brain damage. We need to be responsive and respectful of the extra challenges they have in life.
Serious portion of post: (1) I think this article sums up everything there is to be said about Cain's run, (2) Cain's supporters, when polled, tend to greatly favor Newt and greatly disfavor Romney, so let's see what happens now in the primaries, and (3) nice job shielding all the other Republican candidates from a great degree of public scrutiny, Herman. You done good.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I don't know about "horrible taste in men" on the whole, but it might be fair to say "bad choice."
I think I would have trouble dating a vocal, hard core supporter diametrically opposed to my beliefs. We'd either have to totally ignore politics, which isn't necessarily a problem, or we'd both be in fights, which is troublesome because I also like opinionated, strong women. That can easily be construed as "wait, so you like strong women, but not when they don't agree with you?" Sometimes. I have different sets of criteria for random people I talk to, friends, and significant others, and for SOs, why introduce more explosive variables than you need to? And sometimes opposing views are simply a turn off.
So yeah, for a liberal, someone being a conservative CAN be a deal breaker, but I'd never judge someone just for that.
I think this is totally valid, actually. I don't know how well I could have a relationship with a dedicated Marxist. I doubt it would go well.
But honestly for me it seems much more to do with intelligence, respect, critical thinking, and rationality. My socialist friend is not overzealous and dogmatic, he is cautious and pragmatic and recognizes when reality does not coincide with his ideals. I don't realistically think I could ever be in a relationship with a rabid Randroid or a rabid Marxist, and I like Rand.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ... I shook the man's hand and was actually dating a guy who got him to sign his T-shirt. (Yes, I have absolutely horrible, HORRIBLE taste in men.)
Really? Being a Republican ipso facto makes someone horrible? And a horrible partner?
FWIW, I didn't read that as "Republican=horrible partner" full stop. I read it as "Hardcore Newt Gingrich supporter, to the extent that one would would get his signature on one's T-shirt=horrible partner"
Especially when it comes to picking a partner that one hopes is faithful to you, picking one that is so enthusiastic about a man with Gingrich's romantic history is kinda risky.
Oh come on, do you hold partners to the same standard if they're fans of a cheating celebrity? Liking the professional career of someone who's a bit scummy in their personal life is not uncommon, or indicative of the personal habits of the fan.
I'm nowhere near a hardcore Newt supporter, but I don't think he's terrible or an idiot, and if I was presented with an opportunity to get his autograph I wouldn't mind it.
PS: Thanks for being a paragon of civil discourse as always, Sam. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's left of Cain's support will die entirely and flow to Newt. I suspect that as Gingrich cements a double-digit lead over Romney, several still in the Bachmann/Perry/Everyone else camp will see which way the wind is blowing and flock to Newt as well, who seems to have won the GOP Musical Chairs contest.
There are still a lot of undecideds out there who will start to make up their minds in the next two or three weeks. Unless they're all pragmatic voters who flock to Romney, he's going to be in a surprising amount of trouble in early states he was supposed to do very well in. Anything less than a crushing win in New Hampshire will be spun as a loss. Newt is polling ahead in Iowa, where Romney has barely campaigned (and Iowans are mad about that).
I still think this will come down to how fast the anti-Romney vote coalesces around a candidate, but with Cain out, it might be happening sooner than I thought.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I think this is totally valid, actually. I don't know how well I could have a relationship with a dedicated Marxist. I doubt it would go well.
But honestly for me it seems much more to do with intelligence, respect, critical thinking, and rationality. My socialist friend is not overzealous and dogmatic, he is cautious and pragmatic and recognizes when reality does not coincide with his ideals. I don't realistically think I could ever be in a relationship with a rabid Randroid or a rabid Marxist, and I like Rand.
I have several friends that I get into very long, very heated arguments with on a semi-regular basis about politics, the economy, etc. But we're all still friends at the end of the day, and it's not that big a deal. I think the calculus is a little different with someone you're dating. My last girlfriend was entirely apolitical. The last girl I dated was also entirely apolitical. The one before that was as rabid a liberal as I am, though a bit more of a feminist, which made things interesting but never bad. I find disengagement rather unattractive, I'd probably be more comfortable with someone who disagreed with me a fair bit than with someone who just didn't give a damn at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, again I find I basically agree, though I may have a slightly different threshold than you. For example, and of course this is just based on our interactions here so I could be totally wrong, but I actually feel that our political differences would not keep me from wanting to date you, Lyr. You're intelligent, thoughtful, and civil, which I think is basically all I need for the conversations to stay cool and not disrupt a relationship. But, the last time I dated was many years ago, and I was a liberal myself then, so I don't really have much real experience in this area to compare against.
(Hope that hypothetical didn't weird you out, it was just for illustrative purposes)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
lol, I'm single, but I'm not that single.
Yeah, it totally depends on the person's personality. Some people allow their ideology to control their reactions and emotions more than others. I'm just as susceptible to it as anyone. I think it helps that (this is my observation anyway) women tend to be more interested in understanding and idea exchange than with simply winning an argument, though my best friend, a woman, is a frustrating exception to that rule. On the other hand, us menfolk tend to just want to win. I like winning as much as the next guy, but unless I'm in an actual competition, I'm far more interested in learning and sharing than I am with scoring points (this varies depending on how worked up I get). But yeah, attitude matters a great deal.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, and I'm not single, so don't worry, you're safe. As I said, illustrative only. For additional contrast, I truly find Sam adorable, but I think I'd want to strangle him fifteen minutes into our first date.
Because you're right. At the end of the day, it's the personality that matters, not their political ideology. That's basically all that I was responding to in the first place. If that particular Newt supporter was a scuzzy douche (sort of like Newt!), then yeah, that exemplifies horrible taste in men. But not all Newt supporters are scuzzy douches.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you've obviously never dated me
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I sense a dinner in the offing...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
thousand bucks says ten minutes into a date with me, he'd be a socialist
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
God, I'll willing to kick in fifty bucks just to make it happen. I'll even host.
You'll both love Nebraska.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: FWIW, I didn't read that as "Republican=horrible partner" full stop. I read it as "Hardcore Newt Gingrich supporter, to the extent that one would would get his signature on one's T-shirt=horrible partner"
Especially when it comes to picking a partner that one hopes is faithful to you, picking one that is so enthusiastic about a man with Gingrich's romantic history is kinda risky.
Oh come on, do you hold partners to the same standard if they're fans of a cheating celebrity? Liking the professional career of someone who's a bit scummy in their personal life is not uncommon, or indicative of the personal habits of the fan.
I don't think Newt is merely a celebrity and people who support politicians aren't merely "fans."
The guy is running for a leadership position that involves many decisions that have to do with morals. Decisions like whether to torture, when to go to war, taking responsibility for global warming, etc. A mere celebrity like an actor or a musician, they may be immoral, but they're not necessarily making decisions that matter. We're just buying their music or their movies. That isn't the case with a politician.
(I also don't think "standard" is the right word for what I mean when I use the word risk. I'd rather think of it in terms of risk factors. As in being a supporter of Newt Gingrich is an important risk factor)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You'll both love Nebraska.
I .. I just had a cerebral hemorrhage trying to comprehend this statement
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: FWIW, I didn't read that as "Republican=horrible partner" full stop. I read it as "Hardcore Newt Gingrich supporter, to the extent that one would would get his signature on one's T-shirt=horrible partner"
Especially when it comes to picking a partner that one hopes is faithful to you, picking one that is so enthusiastic about a man with Gingrich's romantic history is kinda risky.
Oh come on, do you hold partners to the same standard if they're fans of a cheating celebrity? Liking the professional career of someone who's a bit scummy in their personal life is not uncommon, or indicative of the personal habits of the fan.
I don't think Newt is merely a celebrity and people who support politicians aren't merely "fans."
The guy is running for a leadership position that involves many decisions that have to do with morals. Decisions like whether to torture, when to go to war, taking responsibility for global warming, etc. A mere celebrity like an actor or a musician, they may be immoral, but they're not necessarily making decisions that matter. We're just buying their music or their movies. That isn't the case with a politician.
(I also don't think "standard" is the right word for what I mean when I use the word risk. I'd rather think of it in terms of risk factors. As in being a supporter of Newt Gingrich is an important risk factor)
Okay, but you talked about Newt's romantic history, contrasting it to hoping your partner is faithful to you. This, to me, strongly reads that you are saying someone who likes Newt's policies must therefore be more likely to cheat on you, since Newt cheated on his wives. Try re-reading it and I think you'll see why I interpreted it that way. And yes, I think this is totally comparable to a sleazy celebrity. In both cases, adultery has little or nothing to do with their major spheres of influence.
Now, if you're saying that someone who likes Newt's policies is more likely to be an awful human being who likes to detain Arab children as prisoners in an illegal war and toss them in an antiquated carbon-spewing torture chamber, then that's a different matter. I still might think you're wrong, but I would have left that fight alone, because I don't have the energy to try to win it right now.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You'll both love Nebraska.
I .. I just had a cerebral hemorrhage trying to comprehend this statement
Hey we have more in common than we thought!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there's something there that wasn't there before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And yes, I think this is totally comparable to a sleazy celebrity. In both cases, adultery has little or nothing to do with their major spheres of influence.
I don't think so. If I like a musician's music, I might like how their music sounds. But for most classes of celebrity, their other behaviour is irrelevant. The only exception I can think of would be a celebrity that has been chosen as a role model, then I think there may be a point of comparison.
(Edit to add: On second thought, I might even need to walk back a bit when it comes to celebrities. For example, if a potential partner said that they respected Tiger Wood's golfing, then I think that would be ok. But if they said that they were a *fan* of Tiger Woods and wanted to get a signature from him on their shirt ... that would definitely be a bad sign. )
On the other hand, a politician, at least in a representative democracy, is supposed to be your representative. As in he (or she) serves as an example of the group that you happen to belong to and makes decisions/policy taking into account the things that you value.
[ December 03, 2011, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay, so, to a certain extent, you're right, but it seems like you're still moving the goalpost from adultery to general badness. One can argue that Newt's adultery, like, say, Clinton's, makes him less fit to be president. I honestly don't really agree, but I can see why people feel that way.
However, I think that this is a far cry from saying that anyone who thinks Clinton was a good president, therefore, be a higher risk of being an adulterer. I still don't see how the two follow at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just saw your edit. Yeah. That's actually a really interesting point. I'll have to chew this one over for a while. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I actually saw NEWT speak when I was in college. I saw him in an auditorium type set up, but then again in a very small groups setting with basically him and about 30 students. I shook the man's hand and was actually dating a guy who got him to sign his T-shirt. (Yes, I have absolutely horrible, HORRIBLE taste in men.)
Really? Being a Republican ipso facto makes someone horrible? And a horrible partner?
Well, no, being a republican isn't so bad. I've voted that way myself sometimes. Being someone who loves Newt enough to have him sign a t-shirt is creepy though. Plus, he wore the shirt frequently.
However, I think I said my taste in men was horrible, not that the ex-boyfriend was.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The timing of the statement, and the use of the word "Yes," implies that one is logically following the other.
However, upon reflection, I will acknowledge that Mucus is right. If someone is still a hardcore "fan" of Tiger Woods after all his baggage, I will question their judgment. So depending on which version of events in Newt's personal life you believe, it seems logical to question the judgment of such a hardcore fan of his, too. So... yeah, being as much a fan as you've described does seem a bit over the top.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think there's something there that wasn't there before.
Yeah, y'know, re: Sam, I've always thought there's something there that's sweet and almost kind. But I know in the past he was mean and he was coarse and unrefined. On the other hand, now he's dear, and even seems so unsure. I wonder why I didn't see it there before.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*overturns table, walks out of thread*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:calls after him: "Good... go on... 'git! Nobody wants you 'round here no-how!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
We're all staight here, right, right? (Except for those of us who aren't, which is no problem, which the little date sidebar reminded me of that stereotypical male 'nohomo!!' philosophy)
Anyway, I've gotta say I disagree with you, Dan. I might be more to your way of thinking if it were just a matter of 'Newt was married and those marriages ended in affair-driven divorces'. Sometimes, humans cheat and that's not a rock-solid guarantee of nefariousness in and of itself.
But Newt went, and goes, further than that, holding forth in past and present about morality, generations, America, protecting values (especially from those effing liberals!), etc etc. It would be politically tiresome to me (because that's not my cup of tea) ordinarily, but when the guy saying it doesn't hesitate not only to castigate his rivals but to hold up his angle as the moral high ground...that seems a very straightforward sign of 'can't trust him'.
Note: campaign-ese admission of flaws, for example, "I don't claim to be the perfect candidate," doesn't count. It's typical politics. If you're gonna be a bucket of s*#t in your personal relationships, you may very well be a gifted administrator or problem solver or scientist or something. But why on Earth would anyone take you seriously when you start gabbing morality?
This is all quite aside from Newt's breathtaking dishonesty and hypocrisy even on straightforward political matters outside of his personal life (hello, lobbying!). I would almost like him to win the nomination just so I can vote against him in the general.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He also, as I mentioned, guns for bootstrappy platitudes which belie an unrealistic apprehension of how things work in the real world, outside of ideological fantasy.
I could just again reference his idea to have the kids be the janitors of schools and this would learn 'em good gumption or something.
Man, just walk into a janitor's storeroom sometime. Count the things on the shelves that any ordinary idiot would still know are a liability and a danger put in the hands of a primary school student. Take a wild guess as to the socioeconomic patterns of divide and impediment to real education that would occur the instant this program got enacted. Guess how much of a distraction to the true task of schools this would additionally impose on centers of learning. What a great system. Look at how emblematic this fuzzy, unrealistic social engineering is to everything he supports. Look at how awesome Newt is. The fact that he's also a hypocritical, godawful scumbag is, as it was with Cain, relevant but FAR from the most important element in why any party should be embarrassed to have him as a representative.
Much less the forerunner at ANY point in their primary.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I've gotta say I disagree with you, Dan.
You disagree with my stance before or after I decided that my initial position was flawed and Mucus had a legitimate point?
I know, I know, it's easy to forget that people can change their minds when faced with arguments (because it seems to happen so rarely!) but when it happens it's important to note exactly what you're disagreeing with.
Edited to clarify: From the context it looks like you're disagreeing with my discarded position. I can't blame you, since clearly even I think it's the wrong stance to take! If I'm missing something, let me know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's *especially* easy to disagree with your discarded position when l missed that you'd discarded it! My bad-I had the reply box open for quite awhile and entirely forgot I did, I think.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I had no idea churches couldn't make it in the long-run in regions where they involved themselves in local politics. Huh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And, to my own disgust, I find myself right now leaning toward Newt Gingrich, a man who, as a human being, in my opinion does not measure up to either Romney or Obama.
But I think he'd make a better President than either. I can support his position on more issues than either of the others'. And as he (incredibly) rises in the polls, I think Gingrich is the kind of practical politician who can get good things done.
It wasn't Clinton who balanced the budget back in the 1990s. It was Newt Gingrich, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Until Gingrich engineered the impossible by winning Republican control of the Congress for the first time since the 1952 election, Clinton did nothing to balance the budget. Gingrich made a budget-balancer out of him.
Maybe, as president, Gingrich could do it again. The world is heading for a financial disaster so terrible that we can hardly imagine it. Governments made the disaster; but America also created the peace that allowed the world system of free trade to flourish, raising living standards everywhere.
There can be no new revelations about Gingrich. We already know every appalling thing about him, because the Left borked and palined him in the 1990s, and there's nothing left to uncover.
So if you Republicans actually want to get rid of Obama, stop looking at "true conservatives" -- they won't get the votes of independents and swing Democrats like me.
And don't nominate Romney, either -- he's too fragile and, being a Mormon, too easy to tear down and destroy. The Left will be so glad to do it.
I think Gingrich is your best choice, because despite his negatives, there is nobody smarter or more capable or with a better record of good government seeking the office of President right now.
He'll blow Mr. Teleprompter out of the water. And he'll know how to work with Congress after he's elected.
Between OSC on Cain and OSC on Gingrich, I don't know what to say. Is there anyone here who earnestly believes that card hasn't just lost it, politically? That's a serious question. Gingrich vs. Obama would be the democratic party's best case scenario right now. It would be throwing the election to Obama. Which bubble of ideologically driven polling misinformation is he in that tells him otherwise?
Also, it helps to know what "palined" means before you use it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I had no idea churches couldn't make it in the long-run in regions where they involved themselves in local politics. Huh.
He doesn't make any sense. I've come full circle into just being amazed by it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I like the mental math that says these two things compute:
quote: The Church does occasionally take a stand on moral issues, sometimes publicly, sometimes in private conversations with government leaders.
quote: We're a worldwide church, and we wouldn't last long in most countries if we ever meddled in politics anywhere .
(emphasis original)
Occasionally we get involved in politics.
We *never* get involved in politics.
I mean, on the face of it, the idea that taking money (a whopping 10% of a whole lot of incomes), to expand the size and scope of your church is not going to naturally expand the political influence of your church is inherently self-contradictory. The church grows, and its influence will grow- even if church leaders *never ever* have a "private conversation," with government leaders, or donate a single dollar to any political cause at all. I understand that he would like us to see it as somehow divorced from all political ambition, but that's a little slippery. Growing a base of church members, with schools, publishing, facilities, and all manner of other activities, is in itself a political enterprise. If it were purely preaching, there would need be no money involved at all. You can spread a religion without money- you get the money because you have ambitions, and ambition and money mean politics. Don't tell me they're sending all that promotional material down to Latin America because it's easier than talking to their neighbors- they're going where they think they can get more members. Add that's already a decision that supersedes the merely spiritual- that is a political decision.
And why would more latin Americans be joining the church? Again, there is the idea that you can simply preach to people, and they will believe you, and I guess that's part of it. But there's something else about sending a well-fed, reasonably well-educated, happy, motivated young American (or other nationality), to a foreign country where people don't have his/her sort of economic or educational opportunities and telling those people that he preaches to that his *religion* is what makes him the way he is.
The US government does the same thing- that's a fundamental principle of American diplomacy- the economic mission is served by giving a positive impression of the American lifestyle, so as to recruit cultural and political allies. Preaching, and more importantly mission serving, is not very different from that very political act.
And before anyone jumps on me about this- I'm being very broad about defining "politics." But I think that's an important point to be made- the idea that you *aren't* political is the statement with a burden of proof. As a default, most endeavors *are* political in some way.
So I think you're hard pressed to follow that particular string and say- "the church is not political." It is not a political party, no. But nothing that big and powerful is not political.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I had no idea churches couldn't make it in the long-run in regions where they involved themselves in local politics. Huh.
For some definitions of "long-run," I think this is actually true. Not what he intended probably though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I had no idea churches couldn't make it in the long-run in regions where they involved themselves in local politics. Huh.
I do believe that any church, including the one I belong to, stands to lose far more than they ever gain by being involved in politics.
This doesn't mean churches have no business in civil affairs, but the deeper they go the more diminishing returns there are for steeper losses.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think you'd have to be careful in how you defined "involved," and "politics." Because most churches stand to gain a great deal by being political. But as I said, being involved in politics in the way that, say, a political party is involved in politics, is something entirely different from being political. OSC is sticking to the idea that since you can dismiss the claim that the church is a political entity, *like a political party*, that it is therefore not a political entity. I find that impossible to believe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: Well that's certainly the trick isn't it? I think Mr. Card's point is that the LDS church cannot be rightly called a political entity as it's key objectives are not political, and it's nature is apolitical. Politics are virtually never discussed in church. When the Prop 8 stuff was going on I was honestly very surprised to hear it brought up at all, even in the limited fashion that it was. Essentially the instructions were that the church was supporting the legislation, members in California were encouraged to donate their time, resources, efforts to it, and the church members were asked to ponder on the matter.
The church does not donate its tithed funds to political organizations, and it does not have political consultants.
Have political leaders contacted our leaders and asked them for their opinions on political issues? Yes. But I'm not privy to what was actually said in those meetings. I wouldn't object to our prophet telling a political leader in private, "I think abortion is wrong in all instances." I'd disagree with the conclusion, but the prophet can speak for himself to whoever he wants, he only speaks for God when he says he is speaking for God and when God himself tells me he's speaking for God.
The church *will* be a political organization one day, specifically when God shows up again and declares that he's running things.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:"it's nature is apolitical."
quote: Essentially the instructions were that the church was supporting the legislation, members in California were encouraged to donate their time, resources, efforts to it, and the church members were asked to ponder on the matter.
You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society. That is politics. It doesn't particularly matter that they didn't *tell* you how to vote. The democratic party doesn't *tell* me how to vote. It encourages me to vote- it states its platform for me, and I can choose to follow it. Politics is not synonymous with coercion; it is the exercise of leverage an entity holds over a community. And by stating its platform and facilitating church member participation in the campaign for Prop 8, the church sent a *clear* message that it had and would use the popular leverage it needed to effect legislation and popular referendums it wanted, and that consequently, it would have to be considered as a potential counterbalance to any opposing agenda.
Hell doing almost anything is politics, but *that* is definitely political.
quote: The church does not donate its tithed funds to political organizations, and it does not have political consultants.
and as the saying goes, if I had wheels I'd be a wagon. Running PACs and lobbying in Washington are not the only ways you can be political.
And on that subject- frankly that is just a claim I do not believe. The church owns a great deal of businesses, and those businesses participate in political lobbying. While the church might not directly employ any lobbyists, I would be *shocked* to hear that there aren't lobbyists living off of church tithings in one way or another.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll certainly agree that the Church's ideals are apolitical, though of course since those ideals involve convincing people to believe given things, there will be some overlap. That's a different sort of politics than...hmmm...being political. If that makes sense.
As for the Chuch out here in the world, though, I don't see how it can truthfully be said that it's apolitical-again, not its ideals, but its execution. Prop 8 being simply the most striking, recent example. Even for all the ideals, politics go right back to the latter day founders, don't they? I mean there was at least political *involvement*-what human organization doesn't have that, at least a little? I think it's a given.
Back to the modern day, though, the Church makes definite efforts (as it should, I think, however much I disagree on some given issues) to persuade its members to behave, proselytize, and believe in certain ways on major social issues-sexuality, how money is spent, where it's spent, what to ingest, what to do on days of the week, marriage, child rearing, so on and so forth. Is it really accurate to claim there isn't any politics in any of that? Would we credit such a claim as accurate for another equally large group?
Anyway, as to my post, I was just having fun with Card's claim that religions which meddle in politics are doomed to failure long-term. Whatever he *meant* by that, that claim is just plain flat-out untrue to the point of silliness.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Its not as entertaining as card supporting gingrich by saying that romneys mormonism is more of a liability than being newt gingrich.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X. When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
quote:And by stating its platform and facilitating church member participation in the campaign for Prop 8, the church sent a *clear* message that it had and would use the popular leverage it needed to effect legislation and popular referendums it wanted...
But see this is exactly it. There have to have been hundreds of pieces of legislation that one could argue the LDS church would have wanted, and yet it felt no need to pursue many of them. You do not see (At least I haven't, and I wouldn't mind being wrong on this point) the church following up on Prop 8. I haven't heard so much as a whisper that members need to donate anything towards the legal team currently appealing Prop 8.
Rakeesh:
quote:As for the Chuch out here in the world, though, I don't see how it can truthfully be said that it's apolitical-again, not its ideals, but its execution. Prop 8 being simply the most striking, recent example. Even for all the ideals, politics go right back to the latter day founders, don't they? I mean there was at least political *involvement*-what human organization doesn't have that, at least a little? I think it's a given.
I don't believe Christianity is designed with political objectives in mind. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." and Paul's admonishment that men support their local magistrates, to me make it clear that while men should be wise in all things including politics, Christianity gives them the tools to be wise, not the tools to be politicians specifically.
quote:Anyway, as to my post, I was just having fun with Card's claim that religions which meddle in politics are doomed to failure long-term. Whatever he *meant* by that, that claim is just plain flat-out untrue to the point of silliness.
I don't find it silly. I was very much alarmed by the church's involvement in Prop 8, I felt that it was going to be ineffectual and it would not accomplish what the church seemed to hope it would. But we also stood to lose so much by getting involved as a church. Though the church is seen as being the engine of Prop 8, yet within the church itself we did not have unity of purpose precisely because in my church we are not used to being told *at* church what anybody's opinions on political matters are. It had never happened to me before that the church leadership had stated a political opinion much less instructed anybody to consider supporting such an opinion. Still they did not command me to support the legislation, in which I am grateful.
Occasionally people will wax political while giving talks, but that just makes people feel awkward and those people are not frequently asked to give talks anymore.
This is purely hearsay, which I suppose makes it not worth mentioning but in talking with some of my own leaders I've heard it said that many leaders in the wake of Prop 8 voiced their disapproval of the church's involvement, and that certain leaders have indicated something to the effect of "never again". Again hearsay, for all I know in a few decades we will have new leaders who don't remember this particular lesson and will step in it, but I genuinely believe that if the church got involved in to use your phrase "being political" it would cease to be God's church, and would turn into something else. It might call itself a church, and even mimic church behavior, but it would be an imitation, nothing more.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
I was referring to the claim that a church which involves itself in politics is doomed long-term. That claim is, I think, untrue when said alone to the point of silliness. Now of course there are risks to a church getting political, but it's hardly a silver bullet. Goodness, especially not here in the USA!
I felt the Church's involvement was deeply troubling also, though not, considering how...actionable?...so many religious social conservatives find gay marrigage, as surprising as you. Put another way, if there were a politcalissue which I would expect the Church to become directly involved in, gay marriage would've been high on the list.
I don't think the Church was designed with political goals in mind either, but that seems to have little bearing on the question of whether or not it is at all political. Heck, isn't 'render unto Caesar' *itself* a political statement? Pay your taxes, live up to your civil responsibilities, be a good citizen, etc.
Perhaps our difficulty lies in whether something must be intended to be political in order to be considered to include politics? I generally think anytime there's two or three much less millions over millions of miles, politics is by human nature involved.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X. When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
quote:And by stating its platform and facilitating church member participation in the campaign for Prop 8, the church sent a *clear* message that it had and would use the popular leverage it needed to effect legislation and popular referendums it wanted...
But see this is exactly it. There have to have been hundreds of pieces of legislation that one could argue the LDS church would have wanted, and yet it felt no need to pursue many of them. You do not see (At least I haven't, and I wouldn't mind being wrong on this point) the church following up on Prop 8. I haven't heard so much as a whisper that members need to donate anything towards the legal team currently appealing Prop 8.
Again, you're arguing some matter of degree, and implying that since the church doesn't, or doesn't *often* go to X degree to get its members to vote, that it is therefore not political. You don't have to be 100% committed to a political cause to be political- you don't have to use *all* your leverage. But using *some* of your leverage is *being* political. You're acknowledging that this is what the church does. You're just pointing out that you personally are comfortable with the level of politics involved in the church; as if as long as it is at a comfortable level for you, it is not politics at all.
Essentially you seem to be implying that "politics," is an inherently negative thing, and since you feel good about what politics the church is involved with, you can't admit that it *is* involved in politics. You're implying that because the church does not act like a political party, it is therefore not a political entity. Sorry, I don't think so.
quote: but I genuinely believe that if the church got involved in to use your phrase "being political" it would cease to be God's church, and would turn into something else.
I'm not going to weigh in on the validity of your religion, BB. But your logic is not internally valid. Your church *is* involved in politics. I understand that many of your leaders or members are uncomfortable with this state of affairs... nevertheless, it is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
And for those who are intererested, here is the German Version.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X.
Sure. But a religious institution, church or otherwise, can act politically without going all the way to "God wants X".
quote:When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
What I'm reading here is that while it hasn't always been successful, the LDS church has been willing to get involved in politics for a long time. I take your point that the church doesn't do so as often as it could, and as often as a cynic might predict that it would, but still--what you're describing is definitely political involvement.
In thinking about what you've said here, I think that it may be that you just have a higher threshold than I do for when action can be considered political action.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was referring to the claim that a church which involves itself in politics is doomed long-term. ... Goodness, especially not here in the USA!
It is too soon to say Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:Essentially you seem to be implying that "politics," is an inherently negative thing, and since you feel good about what politics the church is involved with, you can't admit that it *is* involved in politics. You're implying that because the church does not act like a political party, it is therefore not a political entity. Sorry, I don't think so.
I've said several times there are few benefits to be gained by churches being involved in politics, and everything to lose.
And I explicitly said I *DO NOT* feel good about the political involvement the church has engaged in. You are right a church does not have to be engaged 100% to be political, but say 5-7% of the church's efforts were purely political. It seems strange to then put the LDS church next to say Westboro Baptism and give them both the label "political entity".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who was putting the Church up against Westboro? Speaking for myself, I was only rejecting the claim made in the column that the Church just doesn't get political (and that if it did, it would be a death knell for it as a group), while also acknowledging that it wasn't political like, say, the DNC or something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Nobody specifically did that. But I think we would agree that Westboro or perhaps groups like Hezbollah, represent a complete embrace of politics and religion. I don't think the LDS church belongs in that group, but not because two of those groups are evil, I think the distance in political activism is pretty vast. Enough that you dilute the term by including the LDS church in it. I mean sure if they keep doing things like Prop 8 I'll start to lose my objections, but I'm not there yet personally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Yes and if the scale has 10 points of increasing synergy. I would put the LDS church on 2 maybe 3, that still puts it in not very political territory IMO.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And I explicitly said I *DO NOT* feel good about the political involvement the church has engaged in. You are right a church does not have to be engaged 100% to be political, but say 5-7% of the church's efforts were purely political. It seems strange to then put the LDS church next to say Westboro Baptism and give them both the label "political entity".
Really? Why?
Are you comfortable with calling both a state hospital and a state prison "Government Facilities?" They do vastly different things. The fact that you can put them both in some of the same categories is not relevant. Hell, They're both *churches*, and you don't seem to object to the idea.
I'm not trying to invoke some kind of association fallacy where your church being a political entity makes it evil. It doesn't make it anything, except a political entity. But denying that it is one is silly. It is- by any reasonable definition.
quote: I've said several times there are few benefits to be gained by churches being involved in politics, and everything to lose.
Well, here you're just plain wrong. Churches have a great deal to gain by being political. They also have a great deal to lose. Just because it is risky and just because it *does* change the institution of a church to get involved politics does not mean that churches stand to gain nothing by it. You can consult 2,000 years of European history for evidence of how churches gain through political influence. Again, not necessarily gain *good* things, or gain *righteousness* but definitely gain. Material and political gain: billions and billions of dollars, and land, political influence and power for centuries. The catholic church didn't do it by *not* being political.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Yes and if the scale has 10 points of increasing synergy. I would put the LDS church on 2 maybe 3, that still puts it in not very political territory IMO.
That's fine, BB. I'm not arguing that it's *entirely* a political entity. It is not. I do tend to view it as *more* of a political entity than probably you do, but you are on the inside. A lot of the politics, as I see them, probably look to you like something else. That makes sense.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: We are approaching politics in religion with different values. I'll try to explain what bothers me so much about politics and religion.
I genuinely believe that the church I belong to is an indispensable tool God uses to bless the lives of his children. It performs functions no other organization can. This unique mission is so important and so for lack of a better word holy, it must be protected and kept sacred by constant vigilance and effort.
By nature, sanctifying is an uncomfortable often painful experience in the short term. Human beings often shy away from it or even become devils in the process. One of the easiest ways to turn ordinary men into enemies of God is to taint God's will with human alterations.
I believe God did command that early Christians convert their brethren in Jerusalem. The human element turned it into the Crusades. A stumbling block for billions of Muslims. I do believe God brought forth the Book of Mormon a gift from people in ancient America to all the world, but also to their own descendants who they had foreseen would apostatize. Add the human element, and Indians had their children taken from them by Mormons, who forced them to learn English and forget their mother tongues and culture, in the interest of protecting them from their "false traditions".
I do believe that God has a lot of faith in the strength of family units, and that it is important that as many people as can be readied, should marry and have children. Individual adaptation is necessary in some cases, because people are people. Add the human element and we need to define marriage according to our religion so as to protect it from the definitions others feel are right for them.
I believe God is trying to help us by allowing us to screw up and correct our way into true happiness. Where we comprehend what happiness is, and elect to pay the price of our own free will and choice. So many people live lives of brief chaos or languish in ignorance until they die of old age. I feel utterly surprised I seem to have stumbled on something that actually connects me to my creator.
Not to disparage other churches, I simply believe that while many religions contain truths worth knowing, my contains more of them, and the most important truths that can ever be known. If it pollutes that message by wasting it's time with trying to obtain influence or wealth or power rather than trying to prepare men and women to meet God, it's sins against that sacred charge and if it sins enough, that charge is taken away. Lost for who knows how long, until somebody else is ready to start anew.
I do believe that Prop 8 has been a needless obstacle for many, for it has done nothing but sully the reputation of the church, and send a message we are not unified around. It's certainly possible I am out of step, and am mistaken, but until God helps me find my out of my own self imposed blindness I really do believe that. Your perception that we are turning into a political machine, and that our leaders are pursuing wealth and privilege all in the name of controlling others or in that endless search for riches should be easily disproved, and yet, here we are.
I don't want God's church to be known for Prop 8, I want us to be known for many of the other things we are still known for. Charitable service, music, moral integrity, our faith in Christ. Those sorts of things are what the world needs most IMO. Our forays into politics leave religion dirty rather than leaving politicking clean. That's the essence of my objection.
I would mourn if my church ever lost one of those things that makes it great in exchange for all the money and influence in the world.
[ December 06, 2011, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, as I said, you are using e metric of what you are comfortable with, and what you believe is worth having. Unfortunately for you, these are not the metrics by which we judge success and failure, risk or reward.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, as I said, you are using e metric of what you are comfortable with, and what you believe is worth having. Unfortunately for you, these are not the metrics by which we judge success and failure, risk or reward.
Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about music or literature or education or science?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I have a far better understanding today of the difference between my subjective experience of good and bad, and more absolute terms of success and failure than I did in the past.
I'm curious as to how you are relating the subjects: I'm saying that churches stand to gain *something* by being political. He's arguing that they stand to gain nothing that he finds valuable. I'm not commenting really on value.
So, while of course I would argue against certain things in terms of my perception of their actual value, I think I would acknowledge, now more than in the past, that my experience of value is more subjective than, say, my appraisal of success over failure, for example in music. I am quite good at recognizing success, even in a piece of music I do not value. My analytical skills in that area inform my objective assessment: does this piece achieve what is intended, and is the intent served by, or hindered by any particular artistic decision? So even if i find little value in the result, i can say something meaningful about whether the piece has achieved its own aims, whatsoever they may be. Does that scan?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I scan but am yet more convinced that you are misunderstanding BB's argument.
As I understand it, BB's underlying premise is that the success of any individual or organization must be judged based on how well it fulfills its central mission. If, for example, an organization's mission was to save the polar bear from extinction and the polar bear went extinct -- the organization should not be considered successful no matter how many billions of dollars it raised or how much political influence it gained.
BB seems to be saying that the prime purpose of churches is (or should be) to help people progress spiritually and morally and that involvement in politics detracts from achieving that purpose. Hence, a church, that manages to get power, wealth and influence by participation in politics but by doing so looses it ability to help people progress spiritually and morally is not successful as a Church. It might be successful as something, but it isn't successful at being a church.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights. Or a church that was concerned with keeping the Sabbath could work politically to get blue laws passed. One that was concerned about sexual immorality might work politically to get other kinds of laws passed.
The problem isn't that people bring their religious ideas into the voting booth; it is that their religious ideas are often wrong and misguided.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ahah. Well, of course he's right. My only contention was that "being a church," in the sense that BB sees it, doesn't typically stay the long term goal of any particular church. And churches *do* have a lot to gain through politics, though, as I did say repeatedly, their missions typically change to reflect this new set of values.
For instance, Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism that was in large part co-opted as a political vehicle for bridging the divide between paganism and monarchic rule (which benefits from monotheistic theology and social organization). Christianity itself was changed radically in the process, often by and for people that were never of the traditions from which the sect originally sprang.
And there are countless examples of this kind of thing- the mission of a particular church changes depending on the needs of the people who run it. Protestantism in England became solidly a state religion under Elizabeth I, so that she could consolidate power and protect her ministers from foreign influences- and that was the basis of the British Empire.
So, you could look at that as a church benefitting from politics, or a political movement co-opting a church, but I don't find the distinctions very important. As human institutions, churches will do whatever is perceived to be in their best interests, and under those terms, becoming political is something churches, including LDS, do dependably and with few exceptions.
Now, whether you define that kind of growth in power as good or bad, you cannot limit the term of "successful" to mean, "successful in a specifically pre-determined way." The goals of organizations drift, and success, in any direction, is success at something. And so I don't accept the idea that a church is only a successful church if it fulfills some very specific set of goals that are defined by its more dovish members. We don't think of political parties that way, and we don't think of businesses that way, and for good reason. Goals drift, and today's fancies are tomorrow's willful desires.
And rest assured, if the Mormon church had a an incentive that was clear and sure enough to entice it to expand its organizational base in pursuit of expanding wealth and power, it would- or else it would be unlike any human institution that has ever existed. I tend to think it already *does*. But if you're going to come at this with the assumption that the Mormon church *is* unlike any other organization that has ever existed, then we won't have a good deal to discuss.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Ahah. Well, of course he's right. My only contention was that "being a church," in the sense that BB sees it, doesn't typically stay the long term goal of any particular church. And churches *do* have a lot to gain through politics, though, as I did say repeatedly, their missions typically change to reflect this new set of values.
Which I believe is the heart of BB's concern and his desire that his church avoid that path.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights. Or a church that was concerned with keeping the Sabbath could work politically to get blue laws passed. One that was concerned about sexual immorality might work politically to get other kinds of laws passed.
The problem isn't that people bring their religious ideas into the voting booth; it is that their religious ideas are often wrong and misguided.
Rabbit's pretty much got the long and short of it.
----
Orincoro:
quote:And rest assured, if the Mormon church had a an incentive that was clear and sure enough to entice it to expand its organizational base in pursuit of expanding wealth and power, it would- or else it would be unlike any human institution that has ever existed. I tend to think it already *does*. But if you're going to come at this with the assumption that the Mormon church *is* unlike any other organization that has ever existed, then we won't have a good deal to discuss.
The church being wise (as in ethical and effective) in investing only worries me insofar as those monies are being put to a good purpose. Jesus himself said, "Make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness". The act of learning to invest our resources in others is a sanctifying and divine principle. It makes us better creatures.
Since I know the leaders of my church are not living lavish lives, nor seeking to line their pockets with these funds, the only thing that matters is just how those funds are being used. I presume we agree that regardless of how effective the church does say charity, if leaders are using the funds to make themselves rich that's still unacceptable. Since I know they are being used to build church buildings provide resources all over the world, charitable work, and disaster relief, I am comfortable with the church having all this money in its pockets, because it *is* the church that has these funds, and no individual will unfairly profit from it. If that *ever* changes I will be just as concerned.
To me money can be an obstacle to a church, but it can also be a tool if properly utilized. There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
----------
kmbboots:
quote:Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights.
Extremely tricky tightrope to walk. I'm OK with say my church telling its members to pay a fair wage to workers, or that all men are equal in God's eyes and should be permitted equal participation in society/government. But I'm not OK with it saying, "The church supports Proposition 15 as it embodies the church's view on fair wages." It's never that straight forward. Hell, even the constitution which we almost all universally agree was a good thing had accommodations for the slave trade, disenfranchising poor voters, women, etc. Because politics is inherently compromising, the church should not compromise its morality by being involved with the devil in the details.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a tricky tightrope - both spiritually and legally. Churches can lose their tax exempt status if they cross certain lines. But they do it all the time.
What do you consider the difference between Prop 15 (which you are not ok with) and Prop 8 which your church (mine too but less successfully) did support?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: Well I made up Prop 15, and Prop 8 is real.
I'm not OK with either, I've said as much this entire time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
This is overly cynical even for you. There are churches, like the Quakers for example, who've managed to avoid being corrupted by wealth and power for centuries. And even if there were not, it would not be an argument against there ever being such an organization or the virtue of trying to make one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I knew that you were not ok with Prop 8 but I was getting the impression that you were saying that your church didn't act politically regarding it. Saying that they had acted politically and wishing that they hadn't is a different thing.
I also knew that Prop 15 was hypothetical. Sadly.
Rabbit, the Quakers are pretty uncorrupted by wealth or power, but they certainly are political. Thank goodness!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I think you're blaming the wrong thing with religion getting involved in politics.
As boots already pointed out, religion played a central role in the civil rights movement. Although I think it is important to point out that it played a key role on both sides, one largely admirable and the other despicable. Another interesting example comes from the Catholic Church, where there are many nuns who are extremely committed to social justice and caring for the poor and get involved in politics as part of their pursuit of this primary goal. This contrasts with the involvement in politics of many members of the hierarchy, who often seem to be primarily concerned with the power and prestige of the institution of the church.
Or take the LDS support of Proposition 8 and the National Organization for Marriage. Yes, I think this displayed problems with the LDS church but what were those problems, actually? To me, it was the way the opposition relied on hatred, bigotry, and fear mongering. I could see that these are inflamed by this sort of involvement in the political process, but I don't believe they come from it. They were in the LDS population already.
If the LDS goal were to promote compassionate understanding of gay people and, while still promoting their idea of what God wants for marriage, set out to oppose the sort of bad things that they in actuality promoted and involved themselves in politics to further this goal, I doubt we would see it as a bad thing.
However, that was clearly not their goal. As such, even if the LDS church stayed out of political involvement in this issue, this would still exist as a darkness in the membership. In a way, the prop 8 campaign could be a benefit, as it makes this problem very clear. If the leaders and membership choose to see it as a problem and work at it to challenge the idea that it is ever okay to treat people as the Prop 8 and NOM did, it could be a tremendous cleansing. If not, well, it indicates a further degrading of the organization.
---
As an aside, I know you didn't consciously mean it this way, but the way you use "God told us to do this, then add the human element and it gets corrupted" strikes me as potentially a bad way to look at things. Much human goodness has come out of the human element. I often see a tendency in religious people to dismiss failings in themselves or other religious people as some sort of amorphous "human nature = evil" and I think it is unworthy and very detrimental. There are specific aspects of "human nature" that these things arise out of, many of which are affected (often in negative ways) by current religious teachings. I think endeavoring to understand these aspects along with the many positive aspects that also exist in people and how to mitigate the former and promote the latter should be a primary purpose of, well pretty much everyone, but in this case people who want their religion to fulfill the promise they see in it.
Sadly, the overwhelming response seems to be to try to defend or excuse these badnessess instead of recognizing them as problems and deviations from what the religion is supposed to be about.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
This is overly cynical even for you. There are churches, like the Quakers for example, who've managed to avoid being corrupted by wealth and power for centuries. And even if there were not, it would not be an argument against there ever being such an organization or the virtue of trying to make one.
If the quakers had been as consumerist and aggressively expansionist as the Mormons, they would not be around today in anything like a form that would resemble their origins. The LDS has enthusiastically built a *huge* financial empire, which they are going to have to defend as it continues to grow, since growth is central to their mission. That means compromise; that means an expanding repertoire of political action, and consolidation of power. The church will not continue to grow, and hold closely to anything like its original mission. It's just not possible.
Personally I don't see much virtue in telling yourself that you can do something that's impossible, and avoiding responsibility for the actual inevitable result. Thus, *I* could never be a member of such an organization, because I personally don't see its mission as one that is reasonable or achievable. A key element of Quakerism, among other faiths, is that they have found ways to maintain themselves as institutions that are deeply cultural, and deliberately uninterested in expansion beyond the limited scope of their operations, because they view the manifestation of their church as an ideological system, not as a population that needs to grow to survive. The LDS church is on track to become one of the world's biggest religions, which ultimately means it will also be among the most fragmented and compromised.
And, again only in my opinion, a large element of the draw of Mormonism is aggressive prosthelytizing to (relatively) economically and educationally under advantaged peoples. Sending happy, fit, wealthy and eager young white people (not as a rule but as a point of observation), to South America and farther afield to preach the gospel is a nice strategy that works. It can paint a convincing portrait that, to many people, shows that Mormonism is the key to economic and cultural prosperity.
What happens when you have all those converts that you are going to get, and the game changes? Just as an intellectual exercise, I want to know how you think all that energy, and money, that the church invests in that sort of activity will be spent when the returns begin to slack?
[ December 07, 2011, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: I've been trying to say over and over that my church's involvement in Prop 8 is an example of what I don't like about politics and religion mixing.
MrSquicky: I do not have ANY problem with members of a church forming groups or organizing for a political push. The only group I would bar from doing so would be our missionaries who have sworn to devote all their time to spreading the gospel and baptizing those who wish to join after having heard that message. I don't really have an opinion on monks and nuns in the catholic church as I do not know how their vows and lifestyles go.
If members of the church form groups, and use religion as the thrust of their support, that's completely fine. When I attended an Occupy Provo rally my sign had a scripture on it. But if asked I would absolutely emphasize that I believe I am doing something because it is morally right, but that my church is not a participating party in my protest. The church's rightful response to the issues the Occupy movement stands for is helping people find jobs, taking care of people in need, helping people go back to school, comforting those who stand in need of comfort, condemning corruption, asking business leaders to take care of their workers and be involved in their lives, encouraging people to pay their taxes honestly just as they pay their tithing, etc.
When Utah passed a very progressive immigration reform bill Mormons who were members of the legislature called church leadership asking them if they were morally opposed to the bill. They were informed that leadership supported the bill, and they would not be sinning if they voted either way. I'm OK with legislators seeking council from their church leaders if they don't know what to do I suppose, but that's extremely iffy territory for me, even though I strongly supported the bill in question. In that particular instance the church sent the presiding bishop to the capitol to attend the signing, as a way of saying "We're behind this". If they supported this bill, why not ask them to sign off on any bill that has some sort of moral implication, IOW every single one?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political. You can say (and I applaud you for saying) that you think it was wrong, but you can't say it didn't (and doesn't) happen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're absolutely right- that was the thrust of my earlier argument- the Church, as it grows, *is* going to find itself in territory where it can stand to gain (say by winning the hearts of immigrants), simply by quiet approval of any particular piece of legislation. And then pretty soon, the legislation is being written in such a way that it appeals to the Church's hierarchy for approval. They get used to that state of affairs, and then if it *doesn't* happen that way, it's an insult.
That's how Catholicism got from a sect of Judaism to a supranational political entity that presided over the coronations of kings, waged wars, raised taxes, controlled education, and employed mercenaries to do its bidding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political.
I think he's conceded the fact that it is, but with the caveat that he doesn't like it.
He's doing a little bit of fence sitting, basically saying that the forays into politics that have been made did not hold with the spirit of the church. I've constantly pointed out that this is of little importance in the long run.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
Would you have opposed the LDS leadership during the mid-1900s strongly pushing for civil rights?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political. You can say (and I applaud you for saying) that you think it was wrong, but you can't say it didn't (and doesn't) happen.
My church by design is *not* political. When the church was forming its identity it tried to merge politics and its doctrine so as to create utopian societies. In Ohio and Missouri, it ended with them being forcefully removed from the state. In Illinois they were chased out again and our prophet was assassinated. In Utah it invoked the ire of the US Government and Johnston's army was sent over there and it was almost miraculous there wasn't blood shed. When the Edmunds Tucker act basically disenfranchised the church and forced church leadership into hiding, the correct response would not have been church hosted sit ins or protests.
What I'm saying is the church has already had more than enough experience in politics to find it just gets in the way with what they want to do. It has very much backed down from that state of affairs at present, and I want to encourage it to stay away. Prop 8 is a step in the other direction, and so it is needs to be seen as such.
The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
Again though, even the leaders of our church have to learn by doing, and I believe the prophet and all twelve apostles are honorable men seeking to do their best. I support their right to exercise their authority and make decisions. I support those decisions insofar as I believe God supports them. I hope they learned from Prop 8 and will alter course when it is concluded.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
This kind of talk puts me miles away from having any understanding of what you're trying to say. And it sounds extremely creepy, to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
Would you have opposed the LDS leadership during the mid-1900s strongly pushing for civil rights?
Depends on how they were trying to support it. As I've said, I'm comfortable with leaders of the church speaking out on political issues and giving their opinions. I would not have supported church voter drives, or official church marches on Washington, or putting a Civil Rights Fund on our tithing slips that one could optionally put contributions towards.
I would be comfortable with them speaking in regards to the turmoil of the period and urging members to not act out of hatred. I would be comfortable with the prophet being seen at the Lincoln memorial as Dr. King gave his speech and applauding. I would not be comfortable if missionaries were given instructions as to the church's official response on Civil Rights if asked in the course of their duties if such a position existed.
Is that clear enough?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's clear, it's just arbitrary. Still, you're just defining things that you're comfortable with, and not acknowledging that the Church functions as an institution that has its own unique political momentum- that it doesn't just stop on a dime and never cross over a certain set of comfortable limitations that you have in mind. That it *can't* and *won't* do that. And what's more, that your comfort zone is *also* amorphous, depending on your own political beliefs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's definitely clear. Why do you think that having an official church position/operations for civil rights would be a bad thing?
Is it mainly that you believe that God has basically said to remain apolitical or do you see secularish reasons for this?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
This kind of talk puts me miles away from having any understanding of what you're trying to say. And it sounds extremely creepy, to me.
I'm sorry it sound creepy, it's what I and many Christians believe. I believe that one day Jesus as foretold in the Bible will return to earth and usher in a millennium of peace where he will personally administrate in the affairs of the entire world. It won't be metaphorical, we will all see him with our eyes and hear him with our ears, and there won't be any room for doubt. Some won't want to believe it sure. I will find it extremely liberating that so much nonsense that is in the foreground of everything we do here on earth will be swept out of the way, and we can all focus on just being in a state of happiness and progression. It's something to be looked forward to.
But - we aren't there. I don't believe the church has any sort of duty on trying to jump the gun on God and get us in the millennium before he arrives. Politics is a tempting place where it promises that that can be accomplished if only one tries hard enough. It's a dangerous trap.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's definitely clear. Why do you think that having an official church position/operations for civil rights would be a bad thing?
Is it mainly that you believe that God has basically said to remain apolitical or do you see secularish reasons for this?
Because civil rights as a concept is fine, but when you actually hammer out what it means, you start committing religion to things that are not perfectly moral. OK so black people deserve to vote, but what about affirmative action? It's wrong to assault protestors, but what about activists buying guns to protect themselves from Klan retaliation? It's a mess and it's a convolution on what the church should be handling.
Individual members are more than capable of hammering out what they believe God wants them to do on these matters. They can form groups to that effect, but the church proper simply cannot commit to those sorts of political issues and not eventually make grievous mistakes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Meh. All this implied disgust for humanity and human nature as fallen and irredeemable is sad, I think. Rabbit calls me a cynic- she forgets what an idealist I actually am. Most atheists are far more idealistic than Christians- only in ways Christians don't recognize. Or, I should say, capable of being just as idealistic as any Christian, but in very different ways.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I don't really have good words to describe my approach to humanity. I believe that God created us in his image, and so we represent an immature version of what he is. That is to be celebrated just as we celebrate the birth of any baby and think about their potential as a child/adolescent/adult. But we also look at some of the things that come with that and say, their ignorance, immaturity, selfishness, apathy have got to be subjected.
Humanity should be treated in that same light. I don't hate my own humanity, I love being a human. But I also recognize its frailties and seek to own up to them and work at them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I will find it extremely liberating that so much nonsense that is in the foreground of everything we do here on earth will be swept out of the way, and we can all focus on just being in a state of happiness and progression. It's something to be looked forward to.
But - we aren't there. I don't believe the church has any sort of duty on trying to jump the gun on God and get us in the millennium before he arrives. Politics is a tempting place where it promises that that can be accomplished if only one tries hard enough. It's a dangerous trap.
BB, Catholic theology is quite different as I understand it. We don't look forward to the Kingdom, we are supposed to work towards it. It won't happen without us doing the work. Rather than waiting for God to fix things, we are supposed to do the work of God by fixing things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kmbboots: I was saying jump the gun. I'm find with preparing the world for God by following the teachings of Christ, and spreading his message. I'm not fine with, "The church should be in charge, then God will come sooner!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I was responding more to the passive expression of "will be swept away". In our teaching, we are the ones who need to do the sweeping and get us to the Kingdom so God can arrive. Or we will recognize that God is here all the time.
Where do you draw the line between preparing and jumping?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think BB IS saying that implying passivity was not what he meant to say.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We're definitely on the preparing side, IMO. We're not into laying down on the living room floor and waiting for the rapture. Eventually Christ will come, but much has to be done to prepare the world for that day, and that's what we as a church are here to do.
I'm not sure how this differs from Catholicism: the idea that if we refuse to do the work, we will be replaced and someone else will do it. One way or another, the work gets done and the purposes of God are fulfilled. This is a common theme in LDS scripture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Then the passive language was curious. What do LDS generally believe will bring the Kingdom?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The way I see it, people are prone to abuse power. The best way we've found to reduce that abuse is to prevent the concentration of power. There are lots of types of power. Some of the most important types of power are political power, judicial power, military power, economic power and religious power (or moral authority). Concentration of power can happen when one group has a monopoly on a particular type of power or when a group is able to wield several different types of power.
Ideally, different types of power will serve as a check against abuse of the other types of power, but that can't work if one group controls several types of power.
Churches (and other organization that are respected as moral authorities) are supposed to act as guardians of the weak. They are supposed to check the powerful. When Churches become aligned with political and economic power, they loose the ability to fill that important role.
This it is one of the many reasons that I believe its important for Churches remain non-political.
In a democracy, its hard to define exactly what that means because Churches are made up of individuals and those individuals should be politically active in their communities. Furthermore, Churches can't act as a check against political abuses unless they speak out on issues of political importance. Its hard to draw a clear line.
What I can say is it is far more dangerous for churches that have a strong central authority (like Mormons and Catholics) to get involved in politics than it is for churches like the Quakers who have no strong central leadership.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Catholics have a traditionally strong central authority but more and more, devout Catholics don't pay attention to it so it does less harm than it otherwise might.
quote:According to the survey: "One in five Catholics … says that church leaders such as the pope and bishops are the proper arbiters of right and wrong" in such matters as divorce and remarriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and contraception, while maintaining that either the individual alone or the individual considering the teaching of church leaders is the proper locus of authority for deciding on such matters.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Then the passive language was curious. What do LDS generally believe will bring the Kingdom?
I'm not sure that question makes much sense from an LDS perspective. God will bring the kingdom when He's ready to do it, whether we are prepared or not.
We prepare so that we will be ready whenever it happens, not to hasten the day. The things that we should be doing to prepare for that event are the exact same things we should be doing to be righteous human beings period so it doesn't really matter whether God comes tomorrow or in a thousand years. We should be doing the same things.
We are supposed to be working to fight poverty, violence, abuse and injustice because they cause human suffering and not because Jesus won't return until they are fixed. We are supposed to be sharing the Gospel, building temples and so forth because those things help reduce human suffering and not because Jesus won't come if we don't.
I think the confusion lies in this. We believe that when Jesus returns, he will establish a political kingdom but we believe that it would be wrong to try to establish a theocracy before he returns. We believe no humans are perfect and thus a theocracy would be dangerous in the hands of any human being. If God's actually present for everyone to see, in person running the government -- that's a totally different thing than a man made theocracy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That makes sense.
We tend to think in terms of "Kingdom of God" rather than the Second Coming. It isn't about trying to get Jesus to come back; it is about creating a world of justice because that is the Kingdom of God.
quote:It's a kind of paradox, says Brian Robinette, a theologian at St. Louis University, that Christians anticipate the Second Coming as both a "gift from God" that has not yet come and a "summons" to already contribute to the building of the kingdom of God.
He adds that it is "something that comes from beyond ourselves, from God, and therefore is utterly gift, while on the other hand it is something that we actively participate in through liturgical practice, ethical practice, through the living of a Christian life, and helping to bring healing to this world. And if one of those two poles is missing, then you have a major distortion."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How extremely fitting that the thread about the republican primary is now talk about the Kingdom of God.
Moving on, Rick Perry stars in an onion parody of himself. Wait, it's real and he's serious. Would you look at that.
(I'd rather not entertain the idea that he's right about Republicans and that its me who is giving them too much credit.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: (I'd rather not entertain the idea that he's right about Republicans and that its me who is giving them too much credit.)
what percentage of republican primary voters do you think would agree with the notion of a liberal war on christianity when polled? how many do you think believe america was founded as a christian nation?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm really amused at the like/dislike ratio on that ad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder where he shot that ad. It looks beautiful there.
You know, I sort of see where he's coming from with the whole War on Christmas thing, though I'm a little confused on school prayer.
Someone quickly educate me, the school prayer thing, is that about kids not being allowed to pray to themselves or in small groups at all, or is it about how they want teacher-led mandatory school prayer?
If it's mandatory, they can sit down and shut up. If kids aren't allowed to pray at all, well, I'm pretty sympathetic on that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hey Lyr, I agree 100% with everything you just said! Nice!
I know that "prayer is banned in schools oh nooo!" is a bit of a religious right mantra. On the one hand, they blow it up into a total myth ("Even an individual student is not allowed to pray by himself!" which is false). On the other hand, the most common stance on the other side is also a myth. ("Only government mandated prayer is banned!" which is also false)
The original decision was basically just striking down teacher-led mandatory prayer. Huzzah! Score one for liberty!
However, there was another SCOTUS decision that is a bit more... iffy. Santa Fe Independent School District v... someone. Ah, Google says Doe. Okay then, v. Doe. That case ruled that a public, student-led prayer before a game (not at all mandatory, but led over the loudspeaker) was also not allowed.
This one, to me, seems pushing back too far, and I think it was the wrong decision. But, I'm not particularly afraid of religion, I just don't like it being mandatory (let's face it, I don't like much of anything being mandatory).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: I don't really have good words to describe my approach to humanity. I believe that God created us in his image, and so we represent an immature version of what he is. That is to be celebrated just as we celebrate the birth of any baby and think about their potential as a child/adolescent/adult. But we also look at some of the things that come with that and say, their ignorance, immaturity, selfishness, apathy have got to be subjected.
Humanity should be treated in that same light. I don't hate my own humanity, I love being a human. But I also recognize its frailties and seek to own up to them and work at them.
We're not disimilar. It's my personal conclusion about humanity that our nature is a quest to become god-like. The idea of God coming back to the world and saving everybody is not much different from the idea that the singularity will arrive and transform humanity onto some new realm of experience.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Hey Lyr, I agree 100% with everything you just said! Nice!
I know that "prayer is banned in schools oh nooo!" is a bit of a religious right mantra. On the one hand, they blow it up into a total myth ("Even an individual student is not allowed to pray by himself!" which is false). On the other hand, the most common stance on the other side is also a myth. ("Only government mandated prayer is banned!" which is also false)
The original decision was basically just striking down teacher-led mandatory prayer. Huzzah! Score one for liberty!
However, there was another SCOTUS decision that is a bit more... iffy. Santa Fe Independent School District v... someone. Ah, Google says Doe. Okay then, v. Doe. That case ruled that a public, student-led prayer before a game (not at all mandatory, but led over the loudspeaker) was also not allowed.
This one, to me, seems pushing back too far, and I think it was the wrong decision. But, I'm not particularly afraid of religion, I just don't like it being mandatory (let's face it, I don't like much of anything being mandatory).
Eh, I can sort of see why the loudspeaker thing would be objectionable. I'm not a fan of using public institutions, even school loudspeakers, to promote a particular religion. On the other hand, if those students want to say a prayer as a small group, even as loudly as they want, before the game, I don't have a problem with that. Kind of a thin line in places, but there has to be a happy medium between schools leading prayers which place a stamp of approval on ostracizing minorities, and banning kids from openly practicing their faith entirely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: "I'll end Obama's war on religion..."
Wow, how dumb does he think Republicans are?
"As America's President, I'll openly voice my disgust for gays, who represent a not unsizeable percentage of our population.
:soothing music:
This bigotry brought to you by some asshole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Someone quickly educate me, the school prayer thing, is that about kids not being allowed to pray to themselves or in small groups at all, or is it about how they want teacher-led mandatory school prayer?
It's a first amendment issue, specifically the establishment clause. Religious speech is protected on the part of students, but religious teaching, voluntary prayer, or other organized religious activities are not permitted, as the bodies governing and funding public schools are limited by the establishment clause- meaning they cannot adopt any regulation or specific allocation of budget or curriculum to religious teachings, even voluntary ones.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I get that.
But a bunch of kids gathering together to pray before lunch or meeting during a free period for bible study aren't establishments of religion, even if they take place in a public space. There's a qualitative difference between a government sanction and a government endorsement. So long as the public institution isn't the one doing the organization, I don't see the problem with the first amendment.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Hey Lyr, I agree 100% with everything you just said! Nice!
I know that "prayer is banned in schools oh nooo!" is a bit of a religious right mantra. On the one hand, they blow it up into a total myth ("Even an individual student is not allowed to pray by himself!" which is false). On the other hand, the most common stance on the other side is also a myth. ("Only government mandated prayer is banned!" which is also false)
The original decision was basically just striking down teacher-led mandatory prayer. Huzzah! Score one for liberty!
However, there was another SCOTUS decision that is a bit more... iffy. Santa Fe Independent School District v... someone. Ah, Google says Doe. Okay then, v. Doe. That case ruled that a public, student-led prayer before a game (not at all mandatory, but led over the loudspeaker) was also not allowed.
This one, to me, seems pushing back too far, and I think it was the wrong decision. But, I'm not particularly afraid of religion, I just don't like it being mandatory (let's face it, I don't like much of anything being mandatory).
Eh, I can sort of see why the loudspeaker thing would be objectionable. I'm not a fan of using public institutions, even school loudspeakers, to promote a particular religion. On the other hand, if those students want to say a prayer as a small group, even as loudly as they want, before the game, I don't have a problem with that. Kind of a thin line in places, but there has to be a happy medium between schools leading prayers which place a stamp of approval on ostracizing minorities, and banning kids from openly practicing their faith entirely.
No, totally, I can sort of see their reasoning too. If, in general, students are not allowed to use the loudspeakers for anything not officially endorsed by the school, then it makes sense. I honestly don't know if that's the case, though.
Much like how our over-concern about Christmas leads to us taking things too far in the other direction (Non Denominational Father Winter wishes you all a Merry Happy, by the way), I wonder if this might be taking it a wee bit over where it needs to be. But then, I'm not terribly worried about people feeling offended or left out or sad or whatever, so long as they aren't being forced to do something.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I get that.
But a bunch of kids gathering together to pray before lunch or meeting during a free period for bible study aren't establishments of religion, even if they take place in a public space. There's a qualitative difference between a government sanction and a government endorsement. So long as the public institution isn't the one doing the organization, I don't see the problem with the first amendment.
Absolutely agree. If the government uses the First Amendment to ban an individual from speaking, something has gone horribly awry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We seem to be agreeing an awful lot lately...am I becoming more conservative, are you becoming more liberal, or is common sense and mutual understanding finally breaking out in America?
quote:Non Denominational Father Winter wishes you all a Merry Happy, by the way
I laughed out loud at this.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Partly I think it's because I'm picking my battles a little more. I find it more interesting to argue with someone in an area where there is enough shared understanding and agreement that both people are speaking the same language. Much more likely that the respective arguments will be understood, and maybe even one person will have his mind changed, if only a little bit.
Also I sort of feel that, because I have a pretty weird and eclectic view of politics, before I'd explicitly stated my positions on a lot of stuff people saw small things I said and filled in the gaps. Which is absolutely reasonable, but may also have resulted in more unnecessary arguments. It still seems to happen, on occasion. But, maybe that's just me.
Re: the Merry Happy thing... Lyr are you the one that couldn't get into Community, or is that Raymond? Because I was quoting Community, so if you are the one who never got into it, this should make you change your mind. And if you got the reference and you're already a fan, then you're perfect just the way you are. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's a quotable I'm happy to be able to use in the wake of that perry ad:
quote:I have to say, as someone who is not a Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country — or maybe forty-four in a row. But that’s my point, is they’ve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status. - Stewart
seem like a ringer for that ad?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah I get that.
But a bunch of kids gathering together to pray before lunch or meeting during a free period for bible study aren't establishments of religion, even if they take place in a public space. There's a qualitative difference between a government sanction and a government endorsement. So long as the public institution isn't the one doing the organization, I don't see the problem with the first amendment.
Absolutely agree. If the government uses the First Amendment to ban an individual from speaking, something has gone horribly awry.
Why? If that individual is speaking on government time,on government property, to students who are required to be present by the government? I'm very much ok with the government enforcing the rules it set in place, *for itself* so as not to allow any of it's employees to abuse their positions.
You start getting into absolutisms about speech, and I jump off the wagon early. Speech is not speaking- the government is not going to put duct tape over your mouth, but some speech, and some forums, are *not* more deserving of protection than the rights of students to be free from religious persuasion in the public schools. I have a right not to be subjected to that, and it supersedes a government employee's right to speak their mind t me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who was talking about government employees? We were discussing students.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: However, there was another SCOTUS decision that is a bit more... iffy. Santa Fe Independent School District v... someone. Ah, Google says Doe. Okay then, v. Doe. That case ruled that a public, student-led prayer before a game (not at all mandatory, but led over the loudspeaker) was also not allowed.
Some quick thoughts about this case specifically, reading quickly from Wikipedia this doesn't fit very well into "Obama's war on religion."
First, the ruling was decided in 2000, before Obama, even before Bush W. Second, the case was brought up by Christians against other Christians (as opposed to atheists or something). Specifically, two sets of students, Mormon and Catholic.
That's the narrative part.
The ruling itself seems to rest against the prayers being "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer."
The "under supervision," using school equipment, and an "explicit" school policy to encourage school prayer are the most objectionable to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not as a legal argument, but just something to consider: there are plenty of places where 'not at all mandatory' public prayer isn't going to be the same thing at all as 'completely voluntary', either. Even among adults, much less with kids being kids. Which is one of the things these sorts of things are partially designed to help avoid, that feeling of public pressure to conform, religiously.
As for the whole 'war on religion' (now c'mon you guys, let's be fair, *OBAMA* ain't makin' war on no Islam, is he? Eh, eh? Another case of 'religion=Christianity (but not always Mormonism!)') in the USA. We live in a nation where it can be controversial sometimes to stand opposed to open Creationism in public schools.
If Obama is prosecuting a war on religion, man, he's like General Custer or something. I suppose he might eventually win when all those unhappy natives have fired all of their projectiles and blunted all of their weapons on the bodies of his army!
If someone, somewhere, even *points out* when they hear 'Merry Christmas!', "Thanks, but I'm not a Christian," you're gonna hear, guaranteed, talk about how they ought to just get over it and take it with the benevolence with which it was intended. The Jews who secretly run everything have had so long to seduce us to Chanukah, but I guess they're pretty crappy generals in this war on religion(Christianity) too.
/vent. Doesn't help I got a dose of this at work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
While looking for interviews from the two families, I found this tidbit.
quote: One family is Mormon and the other is Catholic. The District Court permitted respondents (Does) to litigate anonymously to protect them from intimidation or harassment. 1
quote:1A decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted, that many District officials “apparently neither agreed with nor particularly respected.” 168 F. 3d 806, 809, n. 1 (CA5 1999). About a month after the complaint was filed, the District Court entered an order that provided, in part: “[A]ny further attempt on the part of District or school administration, officials, counsellors, teachers, employees or servants of the School District, parents, students or anyone else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright ‘snooping’, will cease immediately. ANYONE TAKING ANY ACTION ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, OR WITH SCHOOL RESOURCES OR APPROVAL FOR PURPOSES OF ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT THE NAMES OR IDENTITIES OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION, BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, WILL FACE THE HARSHEST POSSIBLE CONTEMPT SANCTIONS FROM THIS COURT, AND MAY ADDITIONALLY FACE CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The Court wants these proceedings addressed on their merits, and not on the basis of intimidation or harassment of the participants on either side.”
A situation where Christians in positions of authority (not even other students) feel comfortable about persecuting other Christians is definitely not a healthy situation for those of us that are in fact not Christian.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Not as a legal argument, but just something to consider: there are plenty of places where 'not at all mandatory' public prayer isn't going to be the same thing at all as 'completely voluntary', either. Even among adults, much less with kids being kids. Which is one of the things these sorts of things are partially designed to help avoid, that feeling of public pressure to conform, religiously.
As if kids need a reason to form cliques that ostracize others? It's going to happen anyway, unless you try to institutionalize some sort of more regimented form of schooling that doesn't allow social groups to form.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Orincoro, if it's a gov employee we're talking about (i.e. a teacher) I'm right there with you. The government is the boss of government employees, so they can make whatever rules for them they want.
But if we're talking about a private citizen on publicly owned land (a.k.a. government owned land a.k.a. a school) I'm not terribly interested in protecting anyone's "right" not to hear someone talk about religion. I get that some kids might feel ostracized. I don't think this is the only time that will happen, and frankly, I don't think that kids feeling ostracized is a good enough reason to impinge on freedom.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who was talking about government employees? We were discussing students.
His was an absolute statement- I saw that it could easily be applied to employees as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But if we're talking about a private citizen on publicly owned land (a.k.a. government owned land a.k.a. a school) I'm not terribly interested in protecting anyone's "right" not to hear someone talk about religion. I get that some kids might feel ostracized. I don't think this is the only time that will happen, and frankly, I don't think that kids feeling ostracized is a good enough reason to impinge on freedom.
Happily the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Students have freedom of speech; that does not extend to a guarantee of the use of public property and equipment at public events.
This is about protecting our government run institutions from interfering with religious practices, not about keeping kids from feeling bad.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Huh-- I don't have a problem with student-led prayer on school grounds.
I do have a problem with them using a loudspeaker to voice the prayer.
It's interesting how technology changes things.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Huh-- I don't have a problem with student-led prayer on school grounds.
I do have a problem with them using a loudspeaker to voice the prayer.
It's interesting how technology changes things.
As with most things, the devil is in the details. As I remember, the problems with this particular case went far beyond the technology. The school district claimed the football game prayers were "student initiated and student lead" but given the details I don't think that's a fair description and neither did the courts.
The original lawsuit brought by the families of two students who were Mormon and Catholic dealt with a wide range of incidents that created a generally hostile religious atmosphere. The school district ceded on all the issues except the football game and graduation prayers without court intervention. I think it it is important to recognize that the prayer issue wasn't something that arose in isolation in an other wise tolerant and accepting school. It was one element of a school environment that was hostile to people who did not belong to the majority religion.
Prior to the lawsuit, the school had an elected student body office of "student chaplain". The student chaplain's official duties included giving prayers over the loud speaker to open football games and graduation ceremonies.
In response to the lawsuit, the school held a vote to determine whether the prayers and office of "student chaplain" should continue. They argued that this made the prayers "student initiated" which, in my opinion, stretches the definition of initiated beyond reason. If someone asks "Should we start with a prayer?", they've initiated something.
I found the Supreme Courts reasoning on the case to be very pursuasive.
quote:The text of the October policy, however, exposes the extent of the school's entanglement. The elections take place at all only because the school "board has chosen to permit students to deliver a brief invocation and/or message." The elections thus "shall" be conducted "by the high school student council" and "upon advice and direction of the high school principal." The decision whether to deliver a message is first made by majority vote of the entire student body, followed by a choice of the speaker in a separate, similar majority election. . . . .
The actual or perceived endorsement of the message, moreover, is established by factors beyond just the text of the policy. Once the student speaker is selected and the message composed, the invocation is then delivered to a large audience assembled as part of a regularly scheduled, school-sponsored function conducted on school property. The message is broadcast over the school's public address system, which remains subject to the control of school officials. . . . .
In this context the members of the listening audience must perceive the pregame message as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration. . . .
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." The delivery of such a message -- over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer -- is not properly characterized as "private" speech. (emphasis mine)
I highlighted the section on insiders and outsiders because it is what initiated the lawsuit in the first place. The school practices made people who were not adherents to the majority religion "outsiders".
This policy ensured that the student chaplain would always represent the religious views of the majority. It created a government sponsored forum for this majority to express its religious views which was not available to minority viewpoints. I'm in full agreement with the majority of the supreme court that this violates the establishment clause.
[ December 08, 2011, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
is obama's recent economy speech on youtube yet?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One more bit on the Sante Fe Independent v. Does decision. I think its ingenuousness to argue that the establishment clause doesn't apply because high school football games aren't compulsory.
As a member of the school band, I was required to attend and play with the band at all home football games. Attending football games was required for cheerleaders, members of the pep club and the drill team, student body officers and of course members of the football team. I suppose you could argue that all those activities are also elective, but they aren't activities people elect to participate in because of a desire to participate in prayer. Requiring students to listen to a prayer in order to participate in elective classes and/or extra-curricular activities that are fundamentally secular in nature (like playing a sport or a musical instrument) is an abuse of power.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a good point. High school football games aren't compulsory, just like cheerleading, ROTC, band, flag corp, football team itself, aren't compulsory either.
-----
Lyrhawn, it's true that there will always be ostracism. And I don't mean to suggest that what I stated should be a strong reason it should be banned-it was just an addendum, because I (personally) think that we should avoid tacit approval of ostracism on religious grounds.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Non Denominational Father Winter wishes you all a Merry Happy.
Father Winter? Sexist!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Winter? Seasonist!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Weatherist!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Words! Words! Words! somethingIST!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Weatherist!
Weather?!
Atmospherist!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: is obama's recent economy speech on youtube yet?
I'm sure it's either on youtube or available on Whitehouse.gov.
Lots of people are calling it his Teddy Roosevelt moment, but I don't think it was even close. Obama is still trying to find a sweet spot between playing it safe and going full on Elizabeth Warren, who at the moment seems to be the only Democrat with a lock on a solid middle class message that works.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Planetist!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Cosmological Bodyiest!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One more bit on the Sante Fe Independent v. Does decision. I think its ingenuousness to argue that the establishment clause doesn't apply because high school football games aren't compulsory.
As a member of the school band, I was required to attend and play with the band at all home football games. Attending football games was required for cheerleaders, members of the pep club and the drill team, student body officers and of course members of the football team. I suppose you could argue that all those activities are also elective, but they aren't activities people elect to participate in because of a desire to participate in prayer. Requiring students to listen to a prayer in order to participate in elective classes and/or extra-curricular activities that are fundamentally secular in nature (like playing a sport or a musical instrument) is an abuse of power.
An excellent point. I think it's quite a shame that these decisions, which protect all students from such abuses of power, are cast as "PC" measures to protect minorities from exclusion. They have the *effect* of doing so, but the law, and the constitution, are in place to protect everyone. The fact that constitutional issues are most often ruled on in cases of minority exclusion is just a function of how the constitution protects the majority from making decisions that will harm everyone, eventually. To frame that as a limitation of freedoms is to value a collective will above actual personal freedom- which is a tendency of the majority that the constitution specifically limits.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Non Denominational Father Winter wishes you all a Merry Happy.
Father Winter? Sexist!
Yep! I also misremembered the quote. Dean Pelton actually said "Non Denominational Mister Winter." That doesn't precisely remove the gender classification, but it does remove the implicit paternalization of the authority figure. Mister Winter seems almost incidental, simply a descriptive classifier. On the other hand, I'm probably just saying that because I have been brainwashed by our cissexist culture into thinking of gender as a binary system.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Cosmological Bodyiest!
Dimensionalist!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rabbit & Orincoro: Just so you don't think I am ignoring you...
I didn't know much about the case, frankly, it was just bouncing around in the back of my head. You make some interesting points about the particulars here. As Rabbit said, the devil is in the details. From what you've said, the ruling seems more reasonable.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Happily the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Students have freedom of speech; that does not extend to a guarantee of the use of public property and equipment at public events.
I can see the argument re: government-owned equipment, which has been purchased/created for a specific purpose. And I'm willing to extend that to property that is purposed for specific uses. So if loudspeakers are off limits for student use, that's fine, the same way the janitor's closet is off limits for students, and the same way a military base is off limits for most civilians. Government ownership of X piece of property does not automatically equate to X piece of property being free to use by any citizen. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I believed that it did.
But schools (not school loudspeakers, but school campuses) are generally purposed to be used by students as a place to learn and grow. Part of learning and growing is being exposed to new ideas and outlooks, including ones that you might find wrong or offensive. So I'm pretty firmly opposed to restrictions on student speech, including religious speech.
Since I'm worried I may be misread, let me repeat that at this point I suspect I'm speaking more abstractly and less about this SCOTUS decision, because it sounds like there were many other factors in this case that led to the decision being made the way it was. That's fine! I'm really just trying to make a distinction in principles, not in the particulars of this case. Okay?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to respond to your post in my newly created War on Religion thread so that this thread can return to discussion of the Republican Primary.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sure! I saw that thread and considered reposting part of it but decided it wasn't worth it.
Not that this thread has really been about the Primary. Not for the last ten pages, anyway. Heh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm reposting this because it got lost in the religious debate and I'd like to hear peoples response.
And for those who are intererested, here is the German Version.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it.
Lyr: Which gay bashing statement? Saw his dig about gays being allowed to serve openly (a bloo bloo bloo it's such a tragedy those terrible gays are gaying up our servicemen with their gay antics), but that was the only one. Linky?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.
We've all heard the arguments that hate crimes legislation creates some sort of special privlege for gays or other minority groups. On several occasions I've pointed out that the language of the hate crimes laws does not specify which "sexual orientation" or "race" its protecting. If someone were assaulted or murdered because they were heterosexual or white or Christian, the hate crimes laws would apply.
This is usually followed by some comment about how that's irrelevant because people aren't assaulted or murdered because they are heterosexual or Christian.
No one but me seems to see the irony in this line of reasoning.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it.
I guess I always find it somewhat amusing to hear how American politics appear to outsiders. American politics often have a major impact on Europe and the rest of the Americas so its very common for people in these regions to follow it and be frustrated by it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh was it about hate crimes? Bleh. Lyr, you can probably guess how I feel about hate crime laws, too!
Jeez, it's like I don't even need to be here! Lyr, I'm going to get back to work, I want you to handle my arguments for the rest of the day, okay?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rabbit: It didn't seem that amusing to me. Just looks like a nakedly biased rant about how terrible Republicans are. Not sure what else to say about it.
I guess I always find it somewhat amusing to hear how American politics appear to outsiders. American politics often have a major impact on Europe and the rest of the Americas so its very common for people in these regions to follow it and be frustrated by it.
That's fair. I'm sure if the politics of other countries mattered to America many of us would be frustrated by those, too. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: It seemed like a very biased, albeit amusingly worded (translations often amuse unintentionally) rant against the Republican party.
I agree they are a bunch of boobs, but it's not like the article tried for objectivity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, this is not directed at you particularly but your use of the word "objectivity" brought it to mind.
I think that the idea of objectivity has been corrupted by journalists. Instead of it meaning a clear, unaltered chronicle of facts, it now seems to mean a situation where for every statement on one side of an issue, you need to make a "balancing" statement on the other side whatever the relative merits of either side.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I agree, Boots. But by any metric that article wasn't remotely objective. There was a lot more editorializing and commentary than there was a chronicle of facts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: Objectivity can't really be quantified, and I don't believe every issue has two equal sides. But I prefer less Bill Maher in my reading, rather than more.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.
We've all heard the arguments that hate crimes legislation creates some sort of special privlege for gays or other minority groups. On several occasions I've pointed out that the language of the hate crimes laws does not specify which "sexual orientation" or "race" its protecting. If someone were assaulted or murdered because they were heterosexual or white or Christian, the hate crimes laws would apply.
This is usually followed by some comment about how that's irrelevant because people aren't assaulted or murdered because they are heterosexual or Christian.
No one but me seems to see the irony in this line of reasoning.
It *is* delicious...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rabbit: It seemed like a very biased, albeit amusingly worded (translations often amuse unintentionally) rant against the Republican party.
I agree they are a bunch of boobs, but it's not like the article tried for objectivity.
Typically my experience of European's "understanding" of American politics is frustrating. First, they are often convinced that they are more knowledgable about American politics than Americans are, which is laughable, and second, they labor under the incorrect assumption that Americans reject common European views of the proper role of government because they are stupid, and not because they have lived their lives in a political landscape that defines their roles in society in a radically different way.
Actually, it's not much different from the way Americans view European politics, except that Americans don't have the conceit of pretending more knowledge of people's life experiences than they actually possess. At least, not the same kind of knowledge. Essentially Europeans and Americans have a lot in common: we buy our own hype, and we lack empathy, but think that we are wise and caring.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:First, they are often convinced that they are more knowledgable about American politics than Americans are
It's often really amusing; the only way to make an even worse situation out of the brokenness of american politics is to presume to understand it through remote caricature, to the extent that it looks worse than the european countries whose political situations are extremely worse than ours. Places like Italy or Belgium (soon to be multiple post-Belgiums) make us look downright sane and functional.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, this is not directed at you particularly but your use of the word "objectivity" brought it to mind.
I think that the idea of objectivity has been corrupted by journalists. Instead of it meaning a clear, unaltered chronicle of facts, it now seems to mean a situation where for every statement on one side of an issue, you need to make a "balancing" statement on the other side whatever the relative merits of either side.
I see this as more a symptom of corruption than a development of philosophy. Today, the media is often too frightened that revealing the facts as they best understand them leaves them open to attack for being *partisan*, as if reality was little more than how one chooses to see things. And for this, frankly, I blame conservatives, and after them, the gutless cowards in the media who allow themselves to be ntimidated and bought by parties who care not for facts, and lastly the public, which swallows the whole mess. But I try to keep in mind: ignorance is not evil. Lying is the true evil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It wasn't hate crimes legislation.
Obama recently released a statement:
quote:"directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons."
Perry said:
quote:Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights. This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop... Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money
So, trying to secure human rights and making sure gays aren't killed or maligned abroad is promoting "special rights." Given some polling data on gay rights in America, he's not just spouting hate, he's actually spouting minority views.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wow! Yeah, that's repugnant.
Heck, every pro-War on Terror conservative pundit I know of loved to trot out gay rights as another example of why liberals should support the war. But then, most conservative pundits I follow are internet pundits, and I think they are statistically much more pro-gay than traditional conservative figures. That's just my gut feeling, not based on any real data.
Either way, though. Wow. Good job, Perry. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. You might like it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well if they'd just freakin' pray themselves straight, their friends, family, and neighbors wouldn't have to lynch 'em so darned much!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It wasn't hate crimes legislation.
No it wasn't, but the same illogic seems to be being used. Offering extra protection to a group that is under special dangers some how gets twisting in to giving them a "privilege".
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For the sake of getting back on message, did anyone see perrys gay bashing statement? Apparently, wanting to live is now a special privilege for gays.
My favourite comment on that video was that it looks like Perry is wearing the exact same tan jacket as Heath Ledger wore on the posters for Brokeback Mountain. It really does.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It wasn't hate crimes legislation.
No it wasn't, but the same illogic seems to be being used. Offering extra protection to a group that is under special dangers some how gets twisting in to giving them a "privilege".
Are hate crime laws actual "extra protection?" They don't really take effect until after the protection is needed, right?
Can someone comment on the deterrent value of these laws?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Can someone comment on the deterrent value of these laws?
Why do you believe it would be different from the deterrent value of other laws?
At a very minimum, being in jail is a pretty significant deterrent to committing further crimes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My understanding of the rational behind hate crimes is that, in addition to that crime of assault or vandalism, there is also the crime of intimidation. Certainly, one can see the difference between painting random graffiti on the garage of a Jewish person and the threat implied by painting a swastika.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My understanding of the rational behind hate crimes is that, in addition to that crime of assault or vandalism, there is also the crime of intimidation. Certainly, one can see the difference between painting random graffiti on the garage of a Jewish person and the threat implied by painting a swastika.
I think this is important but I'd also add that hate crimes legislation recognizes that a crime that is motivated by hatred of a particular group, victimizes the whole group not just a particular individual. If someone were spray painting anti-Mormon graffitti on Garages (or assaulting people coming out of a Mormon Churches, or beating up Mormon Missionaries), it would be an attack on me even if I wasn't a direct victim. In our legal system it is generally agreed that more severe punishment is justified for crimes have more victims.
Hate crimes also affect society as a whole in a different way by creating barriers for some people to openly participate in the community.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:hate crimes legislation recognizes that a crime that is motivated by hatred of a particular group, victimizes the whole group not just a particular individual.
I'm not sure I buy this. If it's also an attack on a group, and the attacker is brought up in a civil suit, do members of the group also share in the compensation?
Thorny.
I'm still not sure how hate crimes legislation protects at-risk groups MORE than normal penalties for crimes.
Worse, I see hate crime legislation as an inroad to thought crime legislation.
Jack Chick gets brought up on a number of noise pollution violations for using a bullhorn in a no-bullhorn zone, preaching against Judaism. He used a number of flammatory statements during his presentation-- does his hate speech incur greater penalty to the noise pollution fine?
Hate crime legislation has good intentions, but I'm not sure that the actual execution is worth the threat.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's a criminal statute, Scott, civil law has different statutes- you can't criticize them on their civil law implications, because they don't have any.
quote: Jack Chick gets brought up on a number of noise pollution violations for using a bullhorn in a no-bullhorn zone, preaching against Judaism. He used a number of flammatory statements during his presentation-- does his hate speech incur greater penalty to the noise pollution fine?
Well, IANAL, but my understanding of the law, in general, is that an individual cannot be punished for a lesser crime, if it is contained within the scope of a greater crime which is under the purview of the prosecuting authority. Meaning, I can't convict you and punish you for two crimes: one being noise violation, and the other being assault (hate speech). I would have to convict you of one or the other, with the lesser crime being an aggravating circumstance, which adds to the weight of the other.
So actually, in my limited understanding, in order to be punished for this as a hate crime, the crime would have to be aggravated assault, it could *not* be the lesser charge of noise disturbance, beefed up by hate speech (since hate speech is not an aggravating condition that could be applied to noise violation). Does that make some amount of sense? You prosecute the crime of assault with aggravation, not the crime of noise disturbance in furtherance of assault.
This is done as much to protect the defendant as to ensure the prosecution of a criminal to the fullest extent of the law: it would be easier to secure a conviction for noise disturbance, but the prosecution is forced to seek the higher charge, if it wishes to make a case for a hate crime.
[ December 09, 2011, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's a criminal statute, Scott, civil law has different statutes- you can't criticize them on their civil law implications, because they don't have any.
From wikipedia:
quote:Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Fair enough. I did not know that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To be honest, neither did I until I looked it up. You had a good point that I didn't consider.
Beyond the idea of the legal semantics of civil/criminal charges is my discomfort with the idea of taking on offense where no wrong was done directly to me. If someone runs over a Southerner, because he's a Southerner...I have a hard time translating his offense against one individual to an offense against me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think you would need to explore the legal precedents involved before you assumed that a class action was actually possible. Civil action apparently is, in some states, but that does not necessarily enable class action, particularly concerning a singular offense. And it's likely this precedent has either never been established, or has been clearly defined already as non-actionable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, if you were one of only six Southerner in a small, northern town and someone runs over two Southerners, yelling "All Southerners must die!" can you see how that might cause you harm? How it might impact your freedom to go about your business?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, I get that, kmboots.
But intimidation is already a crime, and so is assault.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That assault wasn't against you, but the intimidation was against all six of the Southerners.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok, so I've been out of this thread for a bit, but.... OMG Perry's new add!!!
I warn you, it's pretty highly offensive, but REALLY funny!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rick Perry's video is all but entirely a validation of my principles when it comes to fighting homophobic activism and homophobic politics.
OH WAIT I'm sure it's unfair of me to call perry a homophobe, why must I use such derogatory language, all he's saying is that gays being allowed to serve openly means that there's something wrong with the country~~
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Setting aside how truthful the ads are, what do you see as the disconnect, Sam?
My assumption is because OWS is mad about the bailouts too. Is that what you're referring to, or did I miss something?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That assault wasn't against you, but the intimidation was against all six of the Southerners.
If that can be proven, fine. But we already have a law against intimidation; is another law necessary? Does hate crime legislation really exist to make intimidation charges stick?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Do we have laws against intimidation? We have laws against threatening, sure, but those aren't always one and the same.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But we already have a law against intimidation
We have laws against direct intimidation, but this is a new class of behavior that is being criminalized. The effect of spray painting something mean on someone's garage door because you think they are a tool can be substantially different from spray painting something on their garage door because they are black. The former is infuriating to the individual that it happens to but the latter can be terrorizing both to the direct victim and other blacks in the area that see it or are aware of it.
It's this difference in the quality of the experience by the victim and the breadth of affect that hate crime laws are crafted to address. They are crimes that are effectively committed simultaneously against multiple people and we are accustomed to punishing more harshly the person that steals from/hurts/kills ten people than one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Brokeback Perry Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, he's even dressed specifically as the intensely repressed self-loathing gay cowboy.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Heh, he's even dressed specifically as the intensely repressed self-loathing gay cowboy.
Is that how self-loathing gay cowboys dress?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
They're pointing out the similarity between Perry's outfit, and the outfit of Heath ledger's character in Brokeback Mountain. Heath ledger played a self-loathing gay cowboy, and Perry smiles vacantly into the camera and mentions what a shame it is that gays are able to serve their country openly. The odd sensation of listening to a grown man speak such utter rubbish is enhanced by the association with the film about what happens to those individuals who grow up in societies that refuse to accept them as equals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pretty sure both of them are bi-sexual, but clearly they would be happiest together than with the women they marry. Not that that makes much of a difference on how it makes Perry look. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, Perry's outfit is a pretty stereotypical rancher look, which is why they dressed Heath Ledger that way. I'd hate to think that people are so homophobic -- or were so scarred by the idea of gay cowboys -- that no one can wear a beige coat without snickering.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, Perry's outfit is a pretty stereotypical rancher look, which is why they dressed Heath Ledger that way. I'd hate to think that people are so homophobic -- or were so scarred by the idea of gay cowboys -- that no one can wear a beige coat without snickering.
QFT!! In Montana, Carhart jackets and pants are what ranchers, farmers, horsemen, construction workers and handymen typically wear. It's a very common look in the rural west. Possibly even more common than jeans. It's the rancher equivalent of the wall street pinstripe suit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No argument here. But I don't think that has any particular effect on the image as it appears to many viewers, especially with Perry openly criticizing gay rights. The fact that he appears on television in a suit to do political debates and interviews highlights the image of the jacket as a costume, already designed to draw attention to, and appeal to, his supposed roots in rural Texas. And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.
Had this simply been a shot of perry at home in his normal dress, not shooting a slick manipulative campaign add, I would dismiss the connection myself. But given that it is a carefully calculated piece of theater, the imagery is open season for dissection.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.
Only people horribly out of touch with rural America and manual laborers would think of this as a western costume rather normal working clothes.
Yes he's clearly dressed down and emphasizing his rural ranch connections, but if he actually were doing manual labor on his family ranch -- that's very likely what he'd wear.
That jacket is extremely common clothing in rural communities. If you visited any working farm or ranch in Montana, Wyoming or Idaho, I bet you 10 to 1 that you could find a similar looking jacket in every single one of them. To someone who is familiar with that culture, there is absolutely nothing distinctive about this jacket that would make the fact that it was worn by a gay cowboy in a movie any more noteworthy than the fact that both men have on socks.
Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).
Unless you have some strong evidence that homosexuality is dramatically more common among rural conservatives than the 10% that's accepted for the population as a whole, I have a hard time seeing this association as anything more than Big City Liberal bigotry about rural Americans.
[ December 12, 2011, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Gingrich... Sigh.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
As a Texan, the outfit didn't feel gay to me. It just felt Texan.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gingrich... Sigh.
He's a little old for you, don't you think?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).
You aren't wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Both of these videos are by Karl Rove's PAC.
Which one? There are so many disconnects in this videos I have no idea which ONE you might be referring to.
The most obvious is the simultaneous criticism of the "intellectual underpinnings of OWS" and "bank bailouts".
But the bigger issue is that Elizabeth Warren was an opponent of the bank bailouts and lack of accountability from the start. Republicans blocked her appointment to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she might have actually regulate banks and protected the middle class.
Then there's the whole problem of criticizing the Obama administration for not focusing on creating jobs while they are simultaneously working to block any proposal that could create jobs.
Then there's inherent contradiction in criticizing someone for sympathizing with OWS instead of focusing on jobs for the middle class. I thought lack of jobs and decline of the middle class were two of the major OWS issues?
There's also the fact that the bank bailouts and Warren's service on the oversight committee began while GWB was president not Obama.
I was also a bit taken back by the claim that OWS protesters "attack police". That's not what I've seen in the video footage. The first attack ad in this series, Matriarch of Mayhem, had footage of a police officer clubbing protestors while it was talking about the violent protestors.
And I guess the final big disconnect is the idea that linking Elizabeth Warren to OWS is going to hurt her. According to the polls I've seen, the OWS agenda has been pretty popular except with the far right wing who would never support Warren even if Karl Rove endorsed her.
Actually, I think endorsing Elizabeth Warren might be a more successful strategy for CrossRoads than attacking her.
[ December 12, 2011, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And with the outfit already highlighted as a bit of stagecraft, the mental association with the film is only made easier.
Only people horribly out of touch with rural America and manual laborers would think of this as a western costume rather normal working clothes.
Yes he's clearly dressed down and emphasizing his rural ranch connections, but if he actually were doing manual labor on his family ranch -- that's very likely what he'd wear.
That jacket is extremely common clothing in rural communities. If you visited any working farm or ranch in Montana, Wyoming or Idaho, I bet you 10 to 1 that you could find a similar looking jacket in every single one of them. To someone who is familiar with that culture, there is absolutely nothing distinctive about this jacket that would make the fact that it was worn by a gay cowboy in a movie any more noteworthy than the fact that both men have on socks.
Based on what I've read, the characters in Brokeback mountain were portrayed as regular cowboys in all respects except their love for each other and so they weren't dressed as "gay cowboys" or "repressed gay cowboys". (I admit that I've never seen Brokeback Mountain. I very very rarely go to movies anymore. So feel free to correct me I'm wrong).
Unless you have some strong evidence that homosexuality is dramatically more common among rural conservatives than the 10% that's accepted for the population as a whole, I have a hard time seeing this association as anything more than Big City Liberal bigotry about rural Americans.
Okay, let's back up a bit. You're reading way more into my comment than I intended.
I acknowledged that this is indeed a common rural outfit. My comment was that because of the *context* of the ad, that of a politician who is making a very clear attempt to appeal to rural voters by contrasting his usual suit-wearing image with this one, Perry himself is drawing attention to his clothing as a statement about his values and roots. The ad is about his values, which expressly include anti-gay rights sentiment.
Now, given that context, and given the clear attempt to draw attention to his image, his outfit appears to me, and I imagine a few more of the tens of millions of Americans born in urban areas, as a bit of stagecraft. Something clearly and notably different from his usual appearance in a conservative suit, and something clearly in contrast to the typical outfit of mine or any of my neighbors or friends back home.
Then we have this movie, that 5 years ago had a very big impact on particularly the urban American view of rural western America, that dealt with sexual repression in a segment of society that is very self-willed and proud. This image, for people like me who are, quite admittedly, "out of touch" with rural America, is quite reminiscent of that film, which has been the most lasting recent image of that part of America's ethos, especially since the waning of the western film genre during my own lifetime.
Now, what I am saying, is that for *me*, and I posit probably for many people of similar backgrounds, this ad, particularly as it is specifically *about* appealing to people who are uncomfortable with sexual self-expression, is jarringly reminiscent of the theme of that film. I do not claim the image being presented is "fake", but merely intentional. And that given this intention, the unintended association with the film suggests to me that the makers of the ad, and Perry, are themselves quite out of touch with, or perhaps simply not concerned with, the values of Americans like me. I would be the first to admit that had perry appeared in a suit and tie and talked in academic jargon, others would feel he was out of touch with *them*, and that would make sense. The fact is, though, that this is a blatant appeal to a smaller base than is typical for a presidential candidate, and as such, it *does* show a disregard for many outside that base who will view it. People like me, who aren't from rural areas, have no taste for cowboy culture or clothing, and are not Christians, or failing that, not against equal rights for homosexuals.
I am not making *any* comment about homosexuality in rural areas. None. I am commenting on my own experiences, and my own limited knowledge of the south and the rural west. And I am pointing out that I am probably not uncommon as a sampling of that experience. And that is all I am qualified to say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would rather chuckle about the music being reminiscent of that written by a certain gay, Jewish, communist composer.
Beef. It's...nevermind.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And I hasten to add: I am quite ignorant of rural America. I do not claim this as a particular virtue. My mother is from a very poor rural background, and had an aversion to it that kept her from sharing that part of her heritage with her children. But I do know that perry very pointedly claims his aversion to urban American values as a positive personal quality. I would submit that that fact is evident in this ad, inasmuch as in what is said, as implied.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Orincoro, that is because you are not a real American and therefore your opinions do not matter.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh... Right. Well, I forgot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
I remember a day when it was considered vile bigotry to speculate that men who were dancers, beauticians, fashion designers, or nurses were gay.
But you know that really has nothing in common with speculating that an anti-gay rights conservative like Perry is gay , because some of them really are gay.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And I hasten to add: I am quite ignorant of rural America. I do not claim this as a particular virtue. My mother is from a very poor rural background, and had an aversion to it that kept her from sharing that part of her heritage with her children. But I do know that perry very pointedly claims his aversion to urban American values as a positive personal quality. I would submit that that fact is evident in this ad, inasmuch as in what is said, as implied.
I hasten to add that I was not defending Perry, his gay bashing, his religion or this ad. I was only defending his choice of coats.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...I think it comes down to Gov. Perry (and his stylists) made a costume choice that would appeal to a certain demographic. Those of is who notice some smidge of irony in that choice were not ever going to vote for him anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There was nothing inherently wrong with his choice of coats. His choice of words offends me, and his coat adds to the flavor. I wouldn't have commented on his coat had it not been accompanied by anti-gay rhetoric.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those of us offended by the hateful rhetoric are also never going to vote for him anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media.
I honestly resent and hate it when people say in regards to a presidential candidate "There goes the country". It always seems so melodramatic. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit to thinking that if Gingrich is given the Republican nomination and goes on to win, that that speaks to something incredibly wrong with our country.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media..
The post Palin landscape has at least taught us that in politics, any publicity is not necessarily good publicity. Now, if perry s actually only interested in making lots of money as an ex politician, then you're absolutely right. This will not win him the presidency, nor any higher office than he has already held, I think.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gingrich... Sigh.
He's a little old for you, don't you think?
I was posting on my phone so I couldn't elaborate, but basically the "Palistinians are a ficticous people" statement is le sigh even if technically true back in 1948 isn't likely to be true now.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think Perry cut that add precisely so that we would comment on these sorts of things and thus get his name back in the media.
I honestly resent and hate it when people say in regards to a presidential candidate "There goes the country". It always seems so melodramatic. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit to thinking that if Gingrich is given the Republican nomination and goes on to win, that that speaks to something incredibly wrong with our country.
Gingrich according to 538 actually makes a viable amount of sense according to history of the GOP for the last two decades or so, old voters remember him as virtually ending the New Deal democrat hold on the White House and the GOP has voted consistently more rightwing and vastly so since he became Speaker. Honestly he does make sense.
However what is indicative of being wrong with politics in your country is how the fudge you got so many crazies to be in the primary and front runner. Bachmann and Sontorum in particular with Perry following closely behind.
I imagine in a primary today how it would've looked with politics of 30 years ago it would be Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich and Paul.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wouldn't the brokeback mountain comparison only really be obvious among urban voters anyways while it being indicative of rural rugged individualism only indicative to rural dwelling hobbits?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Gingrich according to 538 actually makes a viable amount of sense according to history of the GOP for the last two decades or so, old voters remember him as virtually ending the New Deal democrat hold on the White House and the GOP has voted consistently more rightwing and vastly so since he became Speaker. Honestly he does make sense.
Gingrich only approaches a semblance of sense if you don't give a crap about morally what a bad person he is.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Gingrich only approaches a semblance of sense if you don't give a crap about morally what a bad person he is.
Perhaps it's the tendency for people to like the bad guy? Something akin to "yeah, he's bad, but he's on our side!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I remember a day when it was considered vile bigotry to speculate that men who were dancers, beauticians, fashion designers, or nurses were gay.
Yeah, I'm having a tough-time parsing what you're trying to say here, probably because you have a different perspective as to what happened here.
First, it sounds like you're implying that people are cutting down on speculation (I could be wrong) because they don't want to be seen as bigots. I'm not sure that I can agree with that. For example:
quote:DAN SAVAGE: When I was a kid, and I was odd, the default assumption was that I was odd, not that I was gay. Now when a kid is odd in a Greensburg, gay or straight, the default assumption is gay. Because my job requires me to be in constant communication with people all over the country who are writing in to "Savage Love," calling the podcast, I think I'm a little more conscious of what's going on out there in the boonies -- but even I didn't see that. And that's a bitter pill for those of us my age to swallow. Us out there leading our lives and being successful have actually kind of made it worse for 14-year-old gay kids in Greensburg, Ind.
But let's assume that that "a day" happened and unpack it. Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
The real problem isn't the speculation, the real problem was that people didn't treat gays equally.
So when it comes to the Rick Perry's of the world, the potential "problem" isn't that we speculate about whether or not he's gay based on his rhetoric (like how Dan Savage speculates whether Marcus Bachmann is gay based on his dancing), but whether we treat him equitably if he was gay.
I suppose it's possible that people may mock Rick Perry if he entered into, say, a gay marriage. But it seems to me that the mockery would be about his hypothetical hypocrisy rather than his sexual orientation, so I don't think that the parallel holds.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Gingrich only approaches a semblance of sense if you don't give a crap about morally what a bad person he is.
Perhaps it's the tendency for people to like the bad guy? Something akin to "yeah, he's bad, but he's on our side!"
Perhaps. I've never really grasped that concept myself. "But he's *our* son of a bitch."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That. God that speaks to the most rotten core of conservative America.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
Doesn't that go without saying for everybody? Presumably if it's in their private lives we don't know about it and can't feel one way or the other about it.
If Gingrich was soliciting prostitutes I think there would be more of a scandal. But then again, David Vitter is still a senator.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lol. Ok.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gingrich... Sigh.
He's a little old for you, don't you think?
I was posting on my phone so I couldn't elaborate, but basically the "Palistinians are a ficticous people" statement is le sigh even if technically true back in 1948 isn't likely to be true now.
Israel is just as much a "fictitious" people. Then again, I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this. After reading Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities," I'm not sure any people aren't totally fictitious.
But based on the same definitions we use to define Israel as one people in one country, Palestinians meet the same arbitrary requirements. If anything, their trials over the last 50 years have created for them a new identity that probably didn't exist in 1949, but that's neither here nor there. They are where they are, and they aren't going anywhere, so philosophical arguments over their right to exist as a people are pretty silly. Not that I expect any better from Newt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
No that's not the problem. Yes it is certainly a problem that gays are treated badly, but stereotyping gays would be a problem even if gays were treated like royalty.
Stereotypes dehumanize people. They are limiting and leave little room for individuality. Even positive expectations are hurtful because they create expectations that people can't live up to. They make people feel like there is something wrong with them, like they don't really belong to any group because they can't live up to the stereotype.
As for "the day" I was remembering, I doubt it ever happened among some narrow minded groups, but I lived through it in the 80s on liberal college campuses. It wasn't as much about the acceptability of homosexuality as it was about harmful gender stereotypes. When I was in grad school I had two gay friends who were also working PhDs in Engineering. They were both very openly gay and both of them struggled with the fact that working on a PhD in a technical field was very incongruous with the gay stereotype. They got a lot more grief from the gay community for being being mathematical and scientific than they got from the academic community for being gay.
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Lol. Ok.
What? I mean, it's sort of sad and pathetic, but I'm not going to judge people too harshly for being sad and pathetic. I think most of us are sad and pathetic at various points in our lives, in different ways.
I'm just saying, not everyone who might vote Republican is necessarily doing it because the candidate is willing to push Christian issues. This is a common generalization, but there are lots of issues where religion doesn't enter into it at all.
It depends a lot on what issues are important to the voter. Everyone prioritizes the issues that matter to them, and I suspect everyone here has voted for someone with whom they disagreed on at least a a few issues that seemed comparatively minor against the major things they thought the candidate would do right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, it seems to me that the issue was that the profession of say, dancer, was made unpleasant by people because being a dancer was seen as being effeminate and thus dancers were seen as being more likely to be gay, and thus treated as if they were gay, i.e. badly and unequally.
No that's not the problem. Yes it is certainly a problem that gays are treated badly, but stereotyping gays would be a problem even if gays were treated like royalty.
Stereotypes dehumanize people. They are limiting and leave little room for individuality. Even positive expectations are hurtful because they create expectations that people can't live up to. They make people feel like there is something wrong with them, like they don't really belong to any group because they can't live up to the stereotype.
As for "the day" I was remembering, I doubt it ever happened among some narrow minded groups, but I lived through it in the 80s on liberal college campuses. It wasn't as much about the acceptability of homosexuality as it was about harmful gender stereotypes. When I was in grad school I had two gay friends who were also working PhDs in Engineering. They were both very openly gay and both of them struggled with the fact that working on a PhD in a technical field was very incongruous with the gay stereotype. They got a lot more grief from the gay community for being being mathematical and scientific than they got from the academic community for being gay.
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
That's really interesting, Rabbit. I know a couple of gay libertarians who get a lot more grief from their gay friends about being "right wing" than they get from evangelical Republicans about being gay.
Also, I think I need to concede that your point on the last page was well-taken. I betrayed my big-city living with my ignorance about Perry's jacket and what a common style it was, so that was dumb of me. Happy to admit I was wrong. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Illegal and immoral are different things. I don't think that a single person (or a person who is in an open relationship) soliciting a prostitute is necessarily immoral. I do think that it shows bad judgment for someone in public life.
[ December 12, 2011, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
No more than I would be dissuaded if I found out a Presidential candidate had gone 70 in a 65 zone, or smoked pot, or forgotten to wear a seatbelt, or taken naked pictures of someone before noon on a Sunday in Arizona, or crossed a street without using a crosswalk, or engaged in sodomy in Alabama before 2003, or brought a bushel of apples across the border into California, or... the list goes on and on.
Now, many of those might indicate the person made some stupid choices (for example: smoking pot makes me lose a bit of respect for you, but no more than drinking alcohol does. I just don't really understand the appeal of either of them) but none of them are catastrophic deal breakers.
I'm not terribly concerned about the illegality of them, because I don't think any of them should be illegal. In order for us to have a society where the rule of law is respected and lawbreakers are properly castigated, we first need a society where the laws are sensible, easy to understand, and not actively harmful.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Errr...the flagrantly illegal part of that action isn't an impediment to a candidate's suitability?
Illegal and immoral are different things. I don't think that a single person (or a person who is in an open relationship) soliciting a prostitute is necessarily immoral. I do think that it shows bad judgment for someone in public life.
Bad judgment in the sense that other people will judge him badly for it? Sure. But I'm not willing to jump on that bandwagon.
A female candidate who got an abortion in her youth would probably be excoriated by the religious right. If I personally don't have a problem with abortion, I don't think I'm willing say that her abortion shows "bad judgment" despite what others may think of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bad judgment as it is in most states, illegal and would hurt one's chances of getting and staying elected. Also, the consequences of not having an abortion are considerably more significant than those of not hiring a prostitute.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My favorite part of this article thought is where he talks about the courts invading our private lives. Talk about a fundamental disagreement over what "invasion" and "private lives" mean. As far as I'm concerned, most of the laws that evangelicals want passed are nothing but an invasion of our private lives. Most liberals are out to make sure you can basically do whatever you want in the privacy of your bedroom.
Apparently by private lives he means the right to live comfortably in your home knowing that the neighborhood around you is as homogenous as possible. I'll bet Newt was a fan of restrictive covenants too.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bad judgment as it is in most states, illegal and would hurt one's chances of getting and staying elected. Also, the consequences of not having an abortion are considerably more significant than those of not hiring a prostitute.
You're 100% right, to the extent that my analogy fails utterly.
It does show bad judgment in that sense.
Edit: I nevertheless am not personally dissuaded by a candidate who shows that sort of bad judgment, because I fundamentally disagree with the people judging his actions.
On reflection, it may raise a legitimate question of his ability to stifle his own interests to maintain whatever facade is necessary, and that's a useful ability to have in diplomacy. So it makes sense for it to be a factor. But the deciding factor? Not even close.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Y'know, there are plenty of personal moral failings that can make someone seem ineligible for president to me, but soliciting prostitutes isn't really one of them. Now, a married man soliciting prostitutes without his wife's consent, that indicates poor moral fiber.
Laying aside the question of prostitution and illegality, I was talking about Gingrich who is married, so we are dealing with a hypothetical married man soliciting prostitutes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding.
Hmmm, that's an interesting point. Being a closeted gay is obviously worse than a non-closeted gay. But that isn't actually one of the options. Is it "better" or "worse" than a heterosexual Republican who cynically champions these kinds of ideas to gain votes? Is it better or worse than a heterosexual Republican who does this whole-heartedly? I'm actually not sure if this is a negative or positive stereotype.
That said, I've never been one to shy away from stereotype-based humour for say Chinese people via Russell Peters, so I don't think we have common ground for the rest of the post.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
You don't think being gay is a bad thing, but you pretty clearly think being a closeted gay is a bad thing. The idea that anyone who opposes gay rights is highly likely to be closeted homosexuals is a negative stereotype that's a barrier to understanding. I know that some high profile anti-gay folks have been found to be gay, but that is in no way a justification for the stereotype any more than the existence of a few Jewish bankers justifies the that negative stereotype.
That's not an analogy I'm comfortable with.
Vocally anti-gay folks are making a public statement about their own sexuality and that of others. I don't think you can rightly call it *stereotyping* to suggest that they may be closeted gays, or may themselves have issues with sexual repression. It would be stereotyping to suggest cowboys, in general, are gay, or any other group is gay, unless of course there was some affirmed quality about that group that made it *more* likely than the usual 10% odds, to be true in any individual case. And frankly, I think being a rabid surmonizer against gay rights *totally* qualifies a person as more likely to be gay than any random individual. Perhaps even *way* more likely.
But it's a group of people who do not form a class of their own- theirs is a designation of commission. That is different from being a Jew, or a Christian, black or white. Stereotyping is about a poor understanding of a group that is more complex than supposed. I don't think that's what's going on here. I think the surmise that people who engage passionately in moralistic modeling behavior are likely internally conflicted to some degree is quite sound.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That's not an analogy I'm comfortable with.
Of course you are not comfortable with it because it says that what you are doing is wrong and that's an idea you simply aren't willing to consider.
Your particular brand of bigotry is not fundamentally different than other forms of bigotry. The fact that people do one thing you disapprove of does not make them part of a class of people that are likely to share other hidden and detestable characteristics. It simply isn't justifiable rationally no matter how much you protest that it is. All bigots are convinced their stereotypes are justified. That doesn't distinguish you're attitudes in any way.
Let me offer a counter example. There is a stereotype out there that atheists are rude. I have two outspoken atheist friends who are unarguably rude. They get a kick out of yanking peoples chains by ignoring social conventions and saying shocking controversial things. I was at a party Sunday evening with one of these guys who was defending ritual clitoral mutilation to a woman who is an EU human rights and women rights envoy. The other guy gets a kick out of offending conservative women coworkers with crude sexual jokes that would be a clear violation of sexual harassment laws in the US. (I'm not making this up.)
Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude? If I met someone else who enjoyed being rude, would it be fair to presume they were atheists? Is it OK for me to believe there is some causal link between the two behaviors -- that either lack of belief in God results in rude anti-social behavior or that espousing atheism is usually just an act intended to shock and offend people? Would I be justified in suspecting the first friend sexually harasses his coworkers because the other rude atheist does?
If a person thinks being an atheist is bad, is it fair of them to speculate that you are secretly doing all kinds of other immoral, unethical, dreadful things because you are an atheist?
In case there is any doubt, the answer to all those questions is a resounding "No!". I have quite a few atheist friends who do not share any of those characteristics.
[ December 13, 2011, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't think most core Republican voters care how their candidates behave in their private lives, as long as they are publicly the right sort of Christian and are willing to push Christian issues.
I don't know about this-- I'm not core GOP. But I won't support Gingrich precisely because of his infidelity.
Katharina said a long time ago that if a someone shows themselves unable to honor the vow of marriage-- a vow commonly made, and generally understood to mean monogamy and sexual fidelity-- they certainly should not be trusted blithely to honor the most powerful office in the world.
There's no way in the world that I'd vote for Gingrich, not with his record. Not even if he and I agreed on every point of policy-- his history shows a distinct lack of moral discipline and character.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For me, when a person is loudly promoting traditional sexual morality in public it makes it far more worrisome when that person is privately cheating on his wife, hiring prostitutes, or soliciting sex in public bathrooms.
I do think sexual promiscuity shows a lack of self discipline and poor judgement. But judgement and discipline aren't a single character trait. A person can be a very self disciplined musician, but lack the self discipline to stay on a diet. A person can have the discipline and control to become a great athlete, yet be unable to control their anger or their sex drive. A person can show excellent judgement in their financial lives, and yet make terrible choices in their companions. There are people who I would trust to do surgery who I wouldn't trust to baby sit children. People are complicated and it isn't fair to say that because a person can't be trusted in a particular situations, they shouldn't be trusted in any situation.
But when a person strongly advocates something for others that he is secretly not doing himself, that person's flaw goes beyond their sex life. They are dishonest, hypocritical and lacking in personal integrity. They are either lying about what they believe to gain power and influence or believe that they are somehow special and allowed to break the rules others must follow. I think either of those two options should cause serious concerns in a Presidential candidate, even a candidate whose policies I might otherwise support.
Lying about what you believe and value in order to get power and influence means you care more about power than principle. It indicates you aren't seeking power to achieve some particular end, you are seeking power for its own sake. Those kinds of people are dangerous because they are unlikely to ever be satisfied with enough power. Sadly, I think almost anyone who has significant power suffers from this flaw to some degree or another. It's not a black and white issue.
But believing that you are special and so can break the rules other people must follow is I believe the most dangerous trait I can imagine in a politician. It's not simply a disagreement about what behavior is ethical or moral, or even an belief in situational ethics. Its a belief that ethics don't apply to you, that you are above the laws and rules that apply to other people. It is extremely dangerous to put power in the hands of people who believe they are Ubermenschen that should not be constrained by the same moral and ethical laws that apply to regular people. I think Newt Gingrich is one of those people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:That's not an analogy I'm comfortable with.
Of course you are not comfortable with it because it says that what you are doing is wrong and that's an idea you simply aren't willing to consider.
.
Wow, you've become incredibly rude and increasingly sweeping and accusatory towards me. I think I'm done talking to you. Sorry, could have been an interesting conversation if you could have kept it together, and maybe not accused me of beng a vile bigot. Perhaps you need to ignore me, if you can't kee your anger under control.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't know about this-- I'm not core GOP. But I won't support Gingrich precisely because of his infidelity.
Isn't that basically my point? I mean, it's not hard to show that the core GOP voters are definitely willing to support Newt Gingrich and he's a major scumbag.
And, while there are clearly many other reasons besides anti-Mormon bigotry* to not support Mitt Romney, a large part of why the Republican base won't vote for him is because he is the very wrong sort of Christian.
---
I strongly believe that character is a very important part of someone who is going to be entrusted with political power. That, along with several other things (belief in fiscal and personal responsibility, small government, support for the military, patriotism - in the "ask not what you can do for your country" way), predisposed me towards the GOP in my youth, because those are the things they claim to be about. The years have proved to me that these claims are baseless and that character and these other things are talking points, not things that the rank and file or leadership actually believe in. The last nail for me was watching John McCain, whose 2000 campaign I volunteered for because he seemed to embody those things I valued, whore himself out during the 2004 campaigns.
---
* As a connoisseur of unacknowledged irony, I find a special vintage in the LDS who are appalled at people saying that bigots make up a large part of the anti-gay movement who will then turn around and complain about virulent anti-Mormon bigots in the exact same group. Like how, from some, anti-Mormon bigotry is the only reason for GOP voters to not vote for Mitt Romney.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Orincoro, isn't what Rabbit said to you-while definitely really sharp and accusatory-not especially far from your own not-uncommon style of discussion?
------
As to the prostitution thing, I wasn't making a statement about morality-though I think the idea that prostitution as it exists in the USA can *ever* be absent any moral considerations* is flat-out wrong-but about the disparity between 'elected legislator' and 'I'm deliberately going to disregard laws I disagree with'.
It's not the same as speeding-it's arbitrary, sure, but in terms of illegality our society just views them differently. A cop is less likely to let you off with a warning if you're caugt soliciting or providing prostitution than if you were going 52 in a 45 zone.
*This isn't a country that has a history of legal sex workers who are protected by regulation and health care. *Man*, are we just not. So soliciting prostitution isn't morally neutral for some of the same kinds of reasons buying conflict diamonds isn't. Maybe that individual prostitute isn't routinely assaulted and robbed. Maybe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude?
That's not how stereotypes work.
Stereotypes are about likelihoods and traits that are highly common, but they never were supposed to be 100%. As a trivial example, when Russell Peters, say, jokes about Chinese-Canadians having an accent, that doesn't mean you're supposed to think that 100% of Chinese-Canadians have an accent. The idea is simply that there are enough, so that we can acknowledge the truth that, hey, it happens a lot and it's funny.
In the case of atheists too, I would have answered that as "yes." I do think atheists are way more likely to be perceived as rude. Christianity is in some ways, a social convention in the North America, and an atheist who has the ability to break through that is very likely to voice disagreements with other social norms.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* Orincoro, isn't what Rabbit said to you-while definitely really sharp and accusatory-not especially far from your own not-uncommon style of discussion?
------.
I don't personal,y see much similarity. But if you do, do you suppose that excuses it then?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wow, you've become incredibly rude and increasingly sweeping and accusatory towards me. I think I'm done talking to you. Sorry, could have been an interesting conversation if you could have kept it together, and maybe not accused me of beng a vile bigot. Perhaps you need to ignore me, if you can't keep your anger under control.
My apologies. That came out sounding far more hostile than I was feeling. I do not think you are a vile bigot, but I do think that the attitudes you frequently display toward religious conservatives reflect an unfair prejudice and that you are unwilling to consider even the possibility that this could be the case.
I don't disagree with your political stance. I'm fully in favor of gay rights and think those who aren't are in the wrong. I hate Perry's politics and think is political tactics are vile and nasty, but I'm unwilling to speculate on his private sex life based solely on his political tactics. I think doing that sort of thing is vile.
I know a lot of people very well who are religious, politically conservative and outspoken against gay rights. I disagree with them on a lot of issues but I appreciate that most of them are very decent, loving, caring people. I don't understand what motivates some of their political views, but I know them well enough to know it isn't hatred, fear, greed or mental illness. A lot of them have very healthy sexual relationships with their spouses and happy family lives. Your sweeping judgement of these people is unfair. It is neither reasonable or rational or nice to presume that most people who are vocal on issues of sexual morality are hypocritical or suffering from psychological problems resulting from sexual repression.
Freud's idea that sexual repression was the under lying cause of most anti-social behavior is pretty widely discredited among mental health professionals. I'm unaware of anything more than discredited theories and anecdotes that supports the contention that "being a rabid surmonizer against gay rights *totally* qualifies a person as more likely to be gay than any random individual. Perhaps even *way* more likely." If you have evidence for that, present it. Otherwise I will continue to view such statements as the product of irrational prejudice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I found that your comment, and the one before it about the ad, seemed to mostly ignore everything I had actually said. I think if you go back and look, you'll see I didn't make a sweeping judgement about these people, but suggested there existed some difference between stereotypes about ethnicities, and those about people who crusade against gay rights. I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life. I accept the apology, thank you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life.
How would you characterize a comment that a person is very likely to be a repressed homosexual, if it isn't a speculative comment on his private life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does the fact that there are rude atheists make it fair for me to presume that if someone's an atheist they are going to be rude?
That's not how stereotypes work.
Stereotypes are about likelihoods and traits that are highly common, but they never were supposed to be 100%. As a trivial example, when Russell Peters, say, jokes about Chinese-Canadians having an accent, that doesn't mean you're supposed to think that 100% of Chinese-Canadians have an accent. The idea is simply that there are enough, so that we can acknowledge the truth that, hey, it happens a lot and it's funny.
In the case of atheists too, I would have answered that as "yes." I do think atheists are way more likely to be perceived as rude. Christianity is in some ways, a social convention in the North America, and an atheist who has the ability to break through that is very likely to voice disagreements with other social norms.
That may not be how stereotypes work in a commedy act, but it is exactly what triggered my comments. You said:
quote:Re: Perry On the other hand, outspoken Republican against gay rights, certain rumours over the years, it would make certain possible future developments less than surprising.
You named a specific individual and then pointed to a stereotype with an accusing wink and a nod. How is that any different than speculating that because an individual is an atheist, he's rude?
There is a difference between using a stereotype to joke about a a group, its entirely different to use a stereotype to joke about an individual.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How is that any different than speculating that because an individual is an atheist, he's rude?
It's not. Either there's been a miscommunication here or you're not quite reading what I wrote. I specifically said in what you quoted that atheists *are* more likely to be perceived as rude, especially by those that are religious such as yourself. Why would it be different?
quote:There is a difference between using a stereotype to joke about a a group, its entirely different to use a stereotype to joke about an individual.
Erm, ok?
So all I had to do to make my joke ok was to joke about *all* the Republican candidates being possibly closeted rather than specifically Rick Perry?
Well consider it done! Consider it to now be a joke about all of them, it's a tough burden but I'll do it for you Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I also made no speculative comments about Perry's private life.
How would you characterize a comment that a person is very likely to be a repressed homosexual, if it isn't a speculative comment on his private life.
Tell me where I said that Perry is likely a repressed homosexual. I said no such thing. I know I didn't because I don't think he is. I was commenting generally, not specifically. And my comments had no specific implications intended because I don't specifically think Perry is likely a repressed homosexual. Full stop. Can I be more explicit on that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do think sexual promiscuity shows a lack of self discipline and poor judgement.
Why.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now, when you ask that, Samprimary, I wonder what you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate? Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I do think sexual promiscuity shows a lack of self discipline and poor judgement.
Why.
Why do I think it shows a lack of self discipline? It's reasonable to presume that willingness and ability to delay sexual gratification is related to general impulse control. Numerous studies have confirmed this hypothesis. Behaviors such as having many sexual partners, many one-time sexual partners, many out-of-home sexual encounters, fewer monogamous relationships, and more unprotected sexual relations are highly correlated with general lack of impulse control and inability to delay gratification.
Why do I think it shows poor judgement? Because those behaviors put ones self and others at risk for STDs and unwanted pregnancy. If you are married (as are all the politicans who are the subject of this discussion), those behaviors hurt your spouse and children. If you're a politician in the US, those behaviors have the potential not only to ruin your career but to undermine your positions and your party.
I recognize that those last two points are purely cultural constructs and you are free to argue that they are stupid. But right now in the US, they are unarguably true and every politician in the US knows that. It shows poor judgement to risk your career, your reputation and your political objectives in order to enjoy a casual sexual encounter.
I think Bill Clinton's a classic example. He knew he was being sued for sexual harassment and he knew his political opponents were investigating every detail of his life. He knew what was at risk. No matter what you think about conservative sexual mores, having an affair with a white house intern under those conditions showed very poor judgement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just found this excellent rebuttal to Newt Gingrich's claim that the Palestinians are a people recently invented for political reasons.
And the really great thing about this article is that it's written for one of the countries most conservative newspapers: a paper that caters to a decidedly pro-Israel audience. It will be awfully hard to dismiss this rebuttal as part of the liberal cabal.
[ December 14, 2011, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why do I think it shows a lack of self discipline? It's reasonable to presume that willingness and ability to delay sexual gratification is related to general impulse control. Numerous studies have confirmed this hypothesis. Behaviors such as having many sexual partners, many one-time sexual partners, many out-of-home sexual encounters, fewer monogamous relationships, and more unprotected sexual relations are highly correlated with general lack of impulse control and inability to delay gratification.
So, from this, you're willing to presume that a person being sexually promiscuous shows poor impulse control? That it shows poor judgment? I want to be very sure of your wording, here.
quote:I think Bill Clinton's a classic example. He knew he was being sued for sexual harassment and he knew his political opponents were investigating every detail of his life. He knew what was at risk. No matter what you think about conservative sexual mores, having an affair with a white house intern under those conditions showed very poor judgement.
Do you think the use of an example of an individual practicing sexual infidelity and sexual harassment is a good 'classic example' representing people who you would label as sexually promiscuous? Think anything is odd about this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, when you ask that, Samprimary, I wonder what you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate?
Honestly, if you think i'd come up with a summary of what they indicate, besides 'strong religious upbringing,' I don't come up with any labels, only questions about the qualifiers, like 'define what makes them strong.'
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Will any of the candidates take up Colbert on his offer on joining his debate?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't know, Trump might once he's 'decided' if he needs to enter the race pending his satisfaction with the Republican candidates;)
-----
Samprimary,
Riiiiiight. You wouldn't say anything even close to (once you'd been pinned down, that is, with all the appropriate qualifiers thrown in) 'irrational', 'superstitious', etc.?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do you think the use of an example of an individual practicing sexual infidelity and sexual harassment is a good 'classic example' representing people who you would label as sexually promiscuous? Think anything is odd about this?
Consider it a case of an ambiguous pronoun. When I said "classic example of this", "this" did not refer to a general case of sexual promiscuity, "this" referred specifically to the sentence that immediately preceded the phrase: i.e. a politician who risked his political career to engage in casual sex. My original comment was made in the context of a discussion of American Presidential politics. I'd really rather not broaden the discussion beyond that in this thread.
quote:So, from this, you're willing to presume that a person being sexually promiscuous shows poor impulse control? That it shows poor judgment? I want to be very sure of your wording, here.
Please do not place too much emphasize on my exact wording. I was not constructing a legal document or a philosophical treatise, I was engaging in an informal discussion.
First let me clarify what I meant by promiscuity. I was talking about the kinds of sexual behavior that most commonly show up in scandals, which includes marital infidelity, sexual harassment, rape, sex with prostitutes, sex with many partners and many one time partners, sex with subordinates, sex with strangers in public bathrooms, sex with minors, sex with someone who is of legal age but much younger, and probably a few others. I'm comfortable saying those behaviors demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement.
I recognize that conservatives frequently use the term "promiscuous" to refer to sexual behaviors I didn't list, but that wasn't what I was talking about. It was certainly problematic for me to choose such an inflammatory word but I couldn't think of a more neutral synonym. I know that some of the terms I used above were ambiguous, like many partners and much younger. There is a lot of room between strict monogamy and having hundreds of sex partners in a year. There are plenty of shades gray, but then impulse control isn't a binary function either.
I suppose that if a person really doesn't believe there is any reason to control their sexual expression, it would be inaccurate to conclude their behavior showed poor impulse control. But an inability to see any reasons to avoid the behaviors I enumerated would definitely show "poor judgement".
I think there is compelling evidence that sexual promiscuity (as I tried to define above) is an indicator of a more general problem with impulse control. I think it raises legitimate concerns about a person's self discipline in other areas. I think those types of concerns are relevant to a person's fitness for political office.
But as I said when I first made this comment, people are complicated so it isn't that simple. Poor sexual impulse control does not always mean you can't control other kinds of impulses. Bad judgement in one aspect of life, does not necessarily mean you have bad judgement in all aspects of life.
But all of that is really a diversion from the main point I was trying to make. Which was that I don't think sexual infidelity is nearly as big an issue in a political candidate as hypocrisy. I'm a lot more worried that Newt Gingrich was driving impeaching Clinton for having an affair with a young member of his staff, while Gingrich was doing exactly the same thing than I am about Gingrich having the affair.
[ December 14, 2011, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Riiiiiight. You wouldn't say anything even close to (once you'd been pinned down, that is, with all the appropriate qualifiers thrown in) 'irrational', 'superstitious', etc.?
Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade. If you ask me a question like 'what do you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate' and you expect me to go straight for pejorative personal assessments rather than treating it as a sociological query, you'd be pretty disappointed.
I mean honestly the first thing that came to mind besides 'strong religious upbringing' was greatly lower median age of marriage, probably? I'm sorry if this doesn't conform to the expectation you were working on, but..
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Please do not place too much emphasize on my exact wording.
Hah, well, I guess I better not ..
quote:I was talking about the kinds of sexual behavior that most commonly show up in scandals, which includes marital infidelity, sexual harassment, rape, sex with prostitutes, sex with many partners and many one time partners, sex with subordinates, sex with strangers in public bathrooms, sex with minors, sex with someone who is of legal age but much younger, and probably a few others. I'm comfortable saying those behaviors demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement.
What if we pare down this list to the one trait which relates to what promiscuity actually defines: "sex with many partners and many one time partners." Even better yet, "sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." If a person has sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis, does this behavior "demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade.
What's to confuse? You're a "liberal" aren't you? Isn't that enough? Its a proven fact that all liberals are part of the atheist commie cabal that's trying to undermine America, destroy my marriage, get my children hooked on drugs, steal my property, take my guns, outlaw my religion, and rape my husband in the gym shower. Deny it if you want, but you can't fool us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What if we pare down this list to the one trait which relates to what promiscuity actually defines: "sex with many partners and many one time partners." Even better yet, "sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." If a person has sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis, does this behavior "demonstrate poor sexual impulse control and poor judgement?"
I thought I already addressed that. How many is "many"? If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes. That shows poor sexual impulse control. Where is the dividing line -- there isn't one. Its a continuum.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes. That shows poor sexual impulse control.
And a great deal of energy!
"It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
About freaking time this sort of thing happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Uh, no, you must have me confused with someone from the evangelizin' atheist brigade. If you ask me a question like 'what do you think strong religious convictions and lifestyle indicate' and you expect me to go straight for pejorative personal assessments rather than treating it as a sociological query, you'd be pretty disappointed.
Oh, I wouldn't have expected you to get really nasty, nor do I think you even feel that way (and to be honest, I'm skeptical you thought that was the answer I expected, too).
However, I do think-and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, of course-that if/when you actually did answer the question, terms such as irrational, credulous, and silly might crop up. Not unlike Rabbit's judgment of engaging in frequent casual sex.
---------
Huh. I'm not sure the director was actually being critical himself of Mormonism, at least after a re-reading of the article. It looks like he was actually describing his thoughts on what the views of evangelicals are on Romney.
If that was what he was doing...well. Heh, a little case of 'truth-telling about a critically important bloc of voters in a campaign' turned out to be fatal for him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, that's sort of how I read it too. It didn't look like he was espousing that particular view, he was just articulating what he saw as someone else's view.
I think the real problem there is that, regardless of how true it might be, no one likes being called a bigot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I know many sexually promiscuous people. How dare you assume you understand their motivations or personalities. This is just prejudice... Blah blah blah. You obviously like making values judgements, but object to others making them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How many is "a large number" and what do you mean by "strangers"?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many is "a large number" and what do you mean by "strangers"?
That's what I meant by "quibbling". I'm sure people will disagree about what constitutes a very large number of strangers. Are you saying that there is "no number of total strangers" that would cause you to be concerned or are we arguing about where to draw the line?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: In October, a Robert Jeffress, a prominent Texas pastor who backs Rick Perry called Mormonism a cult, a statement that Perry later disavowed.
Don't they have proofreaders at WaPo? This was downright painful.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers
quote: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes.
Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Even I caught that, and my sarcasmometer is usually way off.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote: In October, a Robert Jeffress, a prominent Texas pastor who backs Rick Perry called Mormonism a cult, a statement that Perry later disavowed.
Don't they have proofreaders at WaPo? This was downright painful.
in a october a robert jeffress a prominent texas pastor who backs a rick perry called a mormonism a cult
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I know many sexually promiscuous people. How dare you assume you understand their motivations or personalities. This is just prejudice... Blah blah blah. You obviously like making values judgements, but object to others making them.
Orincoro, If you actually read all my posts, I hope you'll notice that I've been saying that even if someone has poor sexual impulse control and bad judgement with regards to their sex lives, it is not fair or reasonable to presume that they have bad judgement or poor impulse control in other areas of their lives. I think that's entirely consistent with what I was saying earlier about stereotypes and prejudice.
This entire discussion is really creating a false impression about the point I was trying to make. And that was, I think hypocrisy is a much more serious flaw in a political candidate than being sexual promiscuous (or whatever word bet fits). I think people, of all political persuasions, should be much more disturbed by Newt Gingrich's sexual scandals than the sex scandals of politicians who aren't constantly grand standing about traditional sexual morality.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: How does your knowing them have any bearing on whether or not they have poor impulse control in regards to sex?
It doesn't. I was beng facetious.
Even I caught that, and my sarcasmometer is usually way off.
Suuuuuuuree it is. And I'm the queen of England.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Your highness!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers
quote: If we are talking about sex with a different stranger every day of the year, then yes.
Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Please pardon me while my head explodes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You have to love watching two rich guys fight over who is more middle class.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon,” ... “There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”
What does that mean exactly? I assume that it in part means something like, "If a Mormon takes the media spotlight in the Republican race, many evangelical pastors will highlight how they believe Mormons aren't Christian" which is probably true.
But how does the God part fit in? Is it something like, "God would normally give us a Republican President, but God would rig the vote in order to show that a Mormon cannot win?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think it's more like "normally God wouldn't let Obama win again by allowing a not-a-real-Christian to get the Republican nomination, but God might think it's worth it in order to shine a spotlight on Mormonism so that a thousand pastors can show that it's a non-Christian cult, which many people seem to be forgetting."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, definitely better. Thanks
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
You evidently do not understand me correctly, because there has been no objection to your statements. Questions are not objection.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do I understand you correctly that your objection to my statements is about where the line should be drawn? That's not a discussion I'm interested in having.
You evidently do not understand me correctly, because there has been no objection to your statements. Questions are not objection.
But questioning generally has some point, particularly questions along the lines you have pursued and questions given as answers to questions.
I asked you whether your point was a basic objection to my premise or mere quibbling over details. You responded with more questions about the details rather than an answer to my question.
So if you weren't trying to make any point with your questions, why don't you give a straight forward answer to mine?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
... okay, I'll get all retentive on this.
quote:I asked you whether your point was a basic objection to my premise or mere quibbling over details.
You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
quote:So if you weren't trying to make any point with your questions
False dilemma. Me pointing out to you that you think that there was an objection to your statements where there is none does not mean that I have no point or was not trying to make a point with my questions.
Doooooes this wrap this up?
Okay.
Anyway.
what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
No, that isn't all that happened. First I asked
quote:Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
You quoted the first part of that, showing that you had in fact seen my question, and responded to it with.
quote:Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Only then did I ask if I understood your response to mean we were just quibbling over detail.
You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
quote:what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
I've responded to that several times. I think there is a continuum and I'm not interested in trying to delineate the line of acceptability because I don't think a black/white approach is accurate or useful.
quote:Doooooes this wrap this up?
No. I've tried very hard to give detailed, open and thoughtful responses to your questions. Until you respond in kind to my questions about your point, I'm done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You asked me if you understood me correctly in that my objection to your statements was about where the line should be drawn. Since my answer was that there has been no objection, that's a straightforward answer to this question too.
No, that isn't all that happened. First I asked
quote:Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?
I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
You quoted the first part of that, showing that you had in fact seen my question, and responded to it with.
quote:Yeah, what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
Only then did I ask if I understood your response to mean we were just quibbling over detail.
You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
quote:what do you mean with 'strangers?' Is someone you've gone on a few dates with count as a stranger?
I've responded to that several times. I think there is a continuum and I'm not interested in trying to delineate the line of acceptability because I don't think a black/white approach is accurate or useful.
quote:Doooooes this wrap this up?
No. I've tried very hard to give detailed, open and thoughtful responses to your questions. Until you respond in kind to my questions about your point, I'm done.
I think that the crux of the problem is that some of us can't answer your question, "Is there anyone here who sincerely thinks that having sex with a very large number of strangers is not an indication of problems with sexual impulse control or judgement?" without knowing what you mean by "stranger" or "very large number".
I think that, depending on the answers to those questions and other circumstances, that it is quite possible to have sex with a very large number of strangers without that being an indication of poor judgement or poor impulse control.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is one of the stranger thread drifts I've ever encountered.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: This is one of the stranger thread drifts I've ever encountered.
What do you mean by "stranger"? Hmmm?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you went on a few dates with the thread drift, would you still consider it a stranger?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
This thread drift has somehow warped my mind into reading "stranger" as "strang-er" (rhymes with "hanger"). Thanks, guys.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
When I originally asked the question I clearly indicated why I was asking it by saying.
quote:I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
Before your post I clarified this in a response to kate
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by kmbboots: How many is "a large number" and what do you mean by "strangers"?
That's what I meant by "quibbling". I'm sure people will disagree about what constitutes a very large number of strangers. Are you saying that there is "no number of total strangers" that would cause you to be concerned or are we arguing about where to draw the line?
Since that didn't make it clear, my definition of stranger and large number are irrelevant to the question I was asking.
What I was trying to determine was whether or not there is any reasonable definition of stranger and very large number for which you would consider my statement true. I was asking this so I could understand the nature of your questions. If your answer to that question is no, then its pointless to talk about what I meant by a stranger or a large number, because you will disagree regardless.
If you need to ask how I define stranger or what I consider a large number, you haven't understood what I'm asking.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
Rabbit, this is coming from someone who fundamentally agrees with you (I definitely think that having sex with a lot of strangers is generally not an admirable trait, and I probably define "lot of strangers" more strictly than Sam would, too)... but I want to let you know that your tone is coming off pretty unnecessarily sharp in this thread. Sam can be a little aggravating at times, but you seem to be getting more agitated than is reasonable. It might be a good idea to step away from this thread for a little while to cool off?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, how are you defining "reasonable"?
I guess then, the answer is "not necessarily". For some people in some situations, sex with one person that they know very well shows terrible judgement and will ruin their lives; for others a new partner every weekend could be a quite responsible way of managing their relationships. So unless we are talking about what I would consider "unreasonable" numbers - say too many to get anything else done or enough to indicate some medical issue - then no.
But I am not sure what I am disagreeing with as your point seems hard to pin down. Without knowing what you mean by "sex with a large number of strangers", and {i]why[/i] you think that shows poor judgement and impulse control, I don't know whether I disagree or not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We can expect more and more of this, and it sucks Sucks SUCKS!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. Government for sale to the highest bidder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I guess then, the answer is "not necessarily". For some people in some situations, sex with one person that they know very well shows terrible judgement and will ruin their lives; for others a new partner every weekend could be a quite responsible way of managing their relationships. So unless we are talking about what I would consider "unreasonable" numbers - say too many to get anything else done or enough to indicate some medical issue - then no.
So you do think that it shows bad judgement for a person to have sex with so many strangers that there are clear negative consequences in other aspects of their life . Did I understand that correctly?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or even with one non-stranger. Or even non-sex.
ETA: In other words, all sorts of activities can show bad judgement. Activities that can be good in other contexts. I don't think that sex is in a separate category.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or even with one non-stranger. Or even non-sex.
ETA: In other words, all sorts of activities can show bad judgement. Activities that can be good in other contexts. I don't think that sex is in a separate category.
I didn't say it was in a separate category. I should add that my original comment was in the context of political sex scandals. I never intended it to be a general commentary.
Failure to accurately weigh the risks against the rewards is the essence of bad judgement. In this political climate, a politician is risking his career by engaging in casual sex. I thinking risking your career to get a blow job for a hot young staffer is pretty much the essence of bad judgement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I thinking risking your career to get a blow job for a hot young staffer is pretty much the essence of bad judgement.
Especially if you're wasting your poor judgment getting one of your staffers a blowjob. I mean, he's hot, he can probably get it on his own.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $20 million Gingrich didn't ask for.
We can expect more and more of this, and it sucks Sucks SUCKS!
The dream is that if Obama get elected again, he might still get to put one or two more people on the Supreme Court, and then maybe this thing can be readdressed in a few years and overturned...but that scenario strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.
Not unless states go on a jihad of campaign reform laws, or they push through a constitutional amendment. Though I have to say, this is clearly a non-partisan issue. Process stories don't have the same ideological flare that say, taxes do. If Occupy was smart, they'd already be all over this in some way, though I fear overt support would poison the well.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Total derail, but it's about a primary candidate so this is the thread for it:
I just read a George Will piece from a few weeks back where he rips into Newt, and one passage where he talks about Hunstman really struck me.
quote: Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.
Here's the full article, if you care. I knew Hunstman's positions on some of that stuff, but I'll admit I was ignorant of some of it. Between this and his affection for science, I find myself fond of the guy, and really baffled by his portrayal at the beginning of the debates as a conservative who disliked the Republican party's shift to the "far right." I'd characterize almost all of the things on Will's list as examples of Huntsman being more to the right than the frontrunners, not less. Bizarre.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's funny. In the rest of our lives, I think few Americans would reject the idea that cash gifts will frequently create a sense of obligation, of entitlement and subservience, between people, even very close people such as friends or family. Even *especially* between friends and family.
And yet somehow, when it comes to politics, this side of interpersonal relationships is somehow...sidestepped or forgotten, or less important somehow. I wonder if maybe, just maybe, that side of things is avoided by politicians because the money is, well, going to them? Heh.
That opinion of mine, along with my personal opinions re: recognizing what kind of political system we've got, are the two reasons I get *really* frustrated when people simply counter that money is speech, and we can't ever ever ever EVER infringe on free speech because of how important it is. Makes me just wanna shake 'em and shout, "If you give your brother $10,000 when he really needs it to get a great job, you're not *ever*, not even subconsciously, gonna want *anything* in return, ever?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, you're missing the part where the great job your 10 grand helps him get is working for the construction company that is already on track to build your new house. And you believe your brother really knows his stuff, so the house will be even better.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Another thought. I've worked with several startups over the years. We didn't approach VCs and say "What do you want us to build? We'll do it if you invest in us!"
We approached them and said "This is what we're going to build. We think it will sell and make lots of money. If you agree, invest in us!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like.
I don't believe this is always true. But even if I generously grant this, donations go a long way towards making ridiculously terrible candidates surprisingly viable. Look at, for example, what they did here in Wisconsin.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $20 million Gingrich didn't ask for.
We can expect more and more of this, and it sucks Sucks SUCKS!
The dream is that if Obama get elected again, he might still get to put one or two more people on the Supreme Court, and then maybe this thing can be readdressed in a few years and overturned...but that scenario strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.
Not unless states go on a jihad of campaign reform laws, or they push through a constitutional amendment. Though I have to say, this is clearly a non-partisan issue. Process stories don't have the same ideological flare that say, taxes do. If Occupy was smart, they'd already be all over this in some way, though I fear overt support would poison the well.
Getting rid of Citizen's United and tighter controls on lobbying is certainly something I've seen the Occupy movement hammer hard on. At least at the protests I've attended, and heck *I* brought it up when I was interviewed about it.
Sorry to cross post something from another forum.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, in your construction analogy, only the houses that the wealthy people like will get built. Since houses are analogous to laws and government what we end up with is government for the wealthy. Direct bribery or indirect, the result is the same.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
For that to be the case you need to accept the idea that people like the Kochs are only interested in politicians that help them and screw over everyone else. And, similarly, that conservative economic policies help big businesses and screw over everyone else. I understand that you believe that. I don't. I sincerely doubt I will be able to persuade you. So I think we've pushed this line as far as it will go.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
I think you are overly naive about this. Corporations and Trade organizations very frequently give sizable amounts to both democrats and republicans. Here is a list of the top 100 political donors. You will note that almost all of them give substantially to both sides of the aisle. Quite a few, such as Walmart, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Pfizer, give nearly equal amounts to democrats and republicans. Every politician I know agrees that the way to get donations from the big boys is persuade them you are likely to win. You can't get anything for your money if you back a looser. If you look at the history of contributions over the years, it clearly supports that idea.
But even if you were correct and big donors are usually idealists who are simply putting their money behind candidates who share their ideals, do you think the same is true for most politicians?
Do you really think there are not a lot of politicians who will adopt a position or vote a certain way because they think it will attract big donors?
Do you really think that the average politician won't set aside more time to meet with and listen to a big donor than to the average voter?
And if spending lots of money on advertising doesn't really have any influence, why aren't there any viable candidates who don't spend a lot of money? Why are so many donors and candidates spending millions on something that's totally ineffective? If it didn't work, shouldn't the invisible hand have eliminated it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:For that to be the case you need to accept the idea that people like the Kochs are only interested in politicians that help them and screw over everyone else.
When people like the Kochs are underwriting libertarian think tanks while simultaneously lobbying politicians to use eminent domain in order to build a pipeline that will connect their Canadian oil sand business to their Texas oil refining business, I'm not sure how anyone could doubt that their primary interest is to get politicians to help them and screw over everyone else.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I think it's likely more a case of 'Help us!' and, well, stuff after that really isn't considered very much. If it screws other people over, alright, if it doesn't that's fine too.
quote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
Perhaps this is true for individuals, but as Rabbit has noted it's just flat-out wrong for the sort of big groups we're discussing. Anyway, even on an individual level, you think someone who donates to a campaign whose candidate later does something they don't like won't feel angry and betrayed, of have a good chance of feeling that way? Those feelings don't exist without a sense of entitlement. Also, in the point you're making, when people give money to something/someone, there won't be any sense of obligation if they already agree with them...?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
So, why are you acting like this? Do you have a particular reason to be dropping down into the attitudes you usually sharply criticize and react to?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
So, why are you acting like this? Do you have a particular reason to be dropping down into the attitudes you usually sharply criticize and react to?
Sam, I made 5 separate attempts to explain that my definition of stranger and what I considered to be a large number were irrelevant to the question I was asking. I'm sorry if you can't understand why that could cause exasperation. Since you won't answer my question, I'll pose some specific scenarios.
Consider this extreme example. Some person is involved in a kind of anonymous sex ring where people randomly meet in a dark room to have sex with total strangers. And this person is doing this daily, maybe even several times a day. Saying going out for a quicky during lunch and then again after work. Without knowing anything else about the person, would you consider this kind of sexual activity to show bad judgement? Would such behavior suggest the person had a problem with sexual impulse control?
[ December 16, 2011, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Is it consensual?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Is it consensual?
Yes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam, I made 5 separate attempts to explain that my definition of stranger and what I considered to be a large number were irrelevant to the question I was asking. I'm sorry if you can't understand why that could cause exasperation.
By now you know I disagree that the definition of strangers is irrelevant to the question. If this is all it takes to get you exasperated to the point of hypocritical insults just because I have the same desire for clarification that boots does, then, okay! I learned something about you today, I guess.
quote:Without knowing anything else about the person, would you consider this kind of sexual activity to show bad judgement? Would such behavior suggest the person had a problem with sexual impulse control?
1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
I find that combination of answers perplexing. I'm not sure whether the important distinction is between bad judgement and impulse control or "show" and "suggest".
This behavior is very high risk for all kinds of serious bad stuff like STDs, unwanted pregnancy, being robbed, raped, assaulted or even murdered, unwitting involvement in prostitution or sex slavery or some other serious crime.
You are going to need to define what you mean by bad judgement. Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement. I can see that this bad judgement could result from a variety of things besides poor impulse control, but I'm quite confident in saying it shows poor judgement for a large number of reasons that have nothing to do with morality.
I guess I can imagine some rare circumstance that could justify ignoring any long term risks, like maybe the person has incurable cancer and is certain they will die in a two months (but is still healthy enough to have sex several times a day) or maybe the person has been offered $100 million if they have sex with a thousand anonymous strangers this year or is being forced to do this to save a child that has been taken hostage. If you are answering no because you think "show" means 100% certainty and you think there could conceivably be exceptions, you are presuming something about my choice of words which is incorrect. If your objection is to the word show, is there a word that would change your answer to yes. Would you be comfortable with "beyond reasonable doubt", "highly likely" or "strong indication"?
What if I put a numeric confidence level say "show with at the XX% confidence level"? Is there some value for XX for which you would answer yes? If so, roughly what number would that be?
[ December 16, 2011, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, in the scenario Rabbit described, it's not bad judgment? Aside from the health risks which can be mitigated, what of the much higher risk of violent crime?
It seems such a strange answer you gave I'm wondering if you're serious.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Then again, when you skydive, you don't run the risk of a small, defenseless clone popping out of your body if your parachute fails and you smack into the ground.
Let me also note that reports of contracting incurable and communicable diseases of the genitalia while skydiving have yet to be confirmed by an unbiased, scientific panel of experts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Fool is your judgement not mine.
A single bad choice does not make one a fool. In fact, I believe I have repeated several times in this discussion that it isn't reasonable to presume that people who shows bad judgement in one aspects of their lives, will show bad judgement in all aspects of their lives.
I also didn't say any kind of risk, I said "that kind of risk". I'm not sure how you are interpreting "that kind of risk" but if you think skydiving, riding zip-lines and taking elevators is comparable in risk to the scenario I described, you are very much mistaken. The risk of being killed in a single skydive in the US is 1 in 60,000. The risk of being killed in an automobile accident in a year (for the average US citizen) is 1 in 7000. I can't tell you the exact risk of the scenario I gave above but the risk of contracting HIV from a single act of protected sex with an HIV positive person is 1/5000 and that's only one of the many risks involved so I think its pretty safe to say that the risks associated with that scenario are a lot higher than skydiving.
I should add that the ability to accurately assess risk is one of the key factors in exercising good judgement, so if someone really thinks that the scenario I described is comparable in risk to taking the elevator -- I question their judgement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One last thing Tom, do you see bad judgement and good judgement as some sort of binary function such that any poor choice equals foolishness? I certainly don't. Choosing to take the elevator instead of the stairs (as a regular habit) isn't a particularly good choice, but it certainly isn't remotely as bad as choosing to take heroin or gamble away your life savings.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
I find that combination of answers perplexing. I'm not sure whether the important distinction is between bad judgement and impulse control or "show" and "suggest".
It's 'show' versus 'suggest.' It certainly suggests the extreme likelihood of bad judgment — pretty bloody likely, in fact — but if as you say that's literally all we know about the person and the situation they might be in, it does not provide for the instant diagnosis based on her private habits, especially given that we don't know of the controls or precautions of anonymous sex ring, or whether she actually has to concern herself with the potential of having a baby.
We pretty much just had the conversation on hatrack about making the full-bore diagnosis of someone based on limited information anyway. And hey, this is what happens when we come up with invented scenario stuff, so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What sorts of controls or protections could a private, anonymous sex ring possibly have? The lack of controls and precautions, aside from those taken by the individual participants themselves, is pretty clearly implied in the word 'anonymous'.
And goodness, while I agree Rabbit was getting a bit snarky, you are being super weasely here, Samprimary. I'm still not sure if it's intentionally provocative.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that Samprimary is being particularly weaselly. He could be interpreting "anonymous" as being unknown to the person who was having sex, but screened by some trusted third party.
At any rate, we have a better idea of "a large number" and "stranger".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're right, 'screened by a trusted third party' was clearly what involved in what Rabbit was suggesting, I can see that now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not saying that. I am saying that without the context, it is hard to know. I think that the Rabbit has, sort of, clarified that she wasn't making a general, "people who have unsanctioned sex are reckless addicts" kind of a statement, but that wasn't so clear early on in the discussion. Life in general carries risks that people find acceptable. Sex is no different. I, for one, find casual sex a more acceptable risk than jaywalking.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well if the anonymous sex ring is set up by a group that ensures every participant is STD free and has a contraceptive implant, then Rabbit's example survives and the most common problems people have suggested basically evaporate.
On the other hand, I still would think such a person had poor impulse control and was generally kind of skeezy. So, there's that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that Samprimary is being particularly weaselly. He could be interpreting "anonymous" as being unknown to the person who was having sex, but screened by some trusted third party.
If he's doing that, he's being deliberately evasive. I think by now I've made it clear what I'm asking and he's quibbling about the details to avoid committing himself.
quote:At any rate, we have a better idea of "a large number" and "stranger". [/qb]
You really still don't get my question do you. I was not trying to define stranger or large number with that example. I tried to pick a very extreme case of "sex with a large number of strangers" not because I think that's where the line should be drawn but to determine whether you think that even in such an extreme case its not fair to say it shows bad judgement. If this case wasn't extreme enough for you, is there one that would be? Because if you don't think it shows bad judgement for the most outlandish examples of "sex with large numbers of complete strangers" then there isn't any point in me trying to define what I mean by stranger or what I mean by a large number. You disagree with the basic idea, no matter how its defined.
That's a very different discussion than a discussion about how much casual sex a person can engage in before it shows bad judgement. If that's the discussion you want to have, I'm not interested. I'm never going to say, "having sex on the 4th date shows bad judgement but if you wait to the 5th date you've shown good judgment." Or that having sex with 10 strangers is prudent, but anything more than that is bad judgment. That would be idiotic. There is full spectrum of sexual behavior and a full spectrum of better and worse judgement.
I'm sure you and I see that spectrum differently. We've already had that discussion a number of times; we don't need to repeat it. What I was trying to determine is whether you see a range of more and less prudent sexual behaviors at all or you really think prudence is irrelevant to the question.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Same reason I would think someone who skipped out on their lunch hour to knock a few beers back, or skipped out on their lunch hour to play World of Warcraft, had poor impulse control and was sort of gross.
Being that obsessed with something so ultimately unfulfilling is kind of pathetic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
From Dan's George Will quote:
quote:Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Christ, I hate this talking point. "Double taxation," which isn't necessarily a bad thing in the first place, only occurs when the capital gains being taxed were earned on investments in US stocks. Foreign companies (if they operate overseas) were never charged US income tax in the first place, so the capital gains tax on that income is the first chance the US has to get a share of it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I think by now I've made it clear what I'm asking and he's quibbling about the details not disagreeing with my underlying premise.
I answered your question. People asked if I was serious. I clarified. I brought up good points in my clarification. They relate to the underlying premise.
You can stop calling me deliberately evasive now, thanks.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why?
As I pointed out earlier, a large number of studies have found a strong correlation between this kind of high risk sexual behavior and difficulties with general impulse control. Suspecting an impulse control problem in such a case would not be unfounded or unreasonable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I answered your question. People asked if I was serious. I clarified. I brought up good points in my clarification. They relate to the underlying premise.
By your definition, nothing can ever be "shown". If you think that is relevant to my underlying premise, then its really pointless for me to keep trying to explain it to you. You are simply unwilling to understand.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Is it consensual?
Yes.
Then I do not see how it is anyone's business as long as political power is not abused to do it beyond trivial "Hey look, Imma senator. We get a +1 to penis girth as a class bonus."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Same reason I would think someone who skipped out on their lunch hour to knock a few beers back, or skipped out on their lunch hour to play World of Warcraft, had poor impulse control and was sort of gross.
Being that obsessed with something so ultimately unfulfilling is kind of pathetic.
You are determining "unfulfilling" for these hypothetical people?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you think that is relevant to my underlying premise, then its really pointless for me to keep trying to explain it to you. You are simply unwilling to understand.
I'm sorry your hypothetical didn't provoke understanding that you expected it to. But by responding to that sort of outcome like this, it's really making you seem childish. You're pretty much just flat out set up in a mode where you are intent on dismissing me. It makes charges about whether or not I'm "simply unwilling to understand" irrelevant to my actual state of mind. Think about it.
To note: I could easily write a hypothetical which shows something I would denote as absolutely shown and proven to be poor judgment and lack of sexual impulse control. Yours just fell short of the anti pseudo-psychological-diagnosis formalities I have in place, which has been central to the many times an argument has come up about unreliable or irresponsible judgment in such matters. I just treat it in a more codified sense than I expect you were needing. ::shrug::
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Same reason I would think someone who skipped out on their lunch hour to knock a few beers back, or skipped out on their lunch hour to play World of Warcraft, had poor impulse control and was sort of gross.
Being that obsessed with something so ultimately unfulfilling is kind of pathetic.
You are determining "unfulfilling" for these hypothetical people?
I'm attributing "unfulfilling" in an objective sense to those activities. Perhaps unfulfilling is not the right word. Fundamentally, I'm convinced that some activities have very little intrinsic value, regardless of whether or not people who engage in them have fun doing them. And that's fine! A little bit of valueless fun is all well and good.
But being so devoted to that fun that you do it many times a day, even during your lunch hour (i.e. even during a time when it's not terribly appropriate to be doing it)... is a little pathetic, yeah.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sam, What do you see this discussion as being about because we obviously aren't at all on the same wavelength.
The impression I've got, pages back, is that you are trying to demonstrate to me that no matter how I might define stranger or what large number I might pick, you can find some conceivable mitigating circumstance that would make saying "sex with a very large number of strangers shows bad judgement" invalid. If that's the case. Fine. I have no objection to that. I was never trying to argue that there situations where there could never be a mitigating cirumstance. By "show" I never meant prove with 100% certainty. If you read it that way, you misunderstood me.
Do you have some reason to believe that I was trying to say anything else?
I have no interest in defining terms and proposing hypotheses so you can demonstrate that there is always some imaginable mitigating circumstance. Which is why I asked early on in this discussion whether you and others involved could imagine any reasonable** definition of stranger or any number large enough that you could agree that "sex with a large number of strangers shows bad judgement". If you can't imagine such a definition or a large enough number, then please say so. If you can imagine such a definition, then tell me what that definition is. But please stop trying to get me to define the terms because I am not interested in finding out whether or not I can craft a definition and hypothetical scenario that's sufficiently air tight that you can't think of any mitigating circumstance. That's not a game I find interesting.
I made the original statement in regard to political sex scandals and the relevant standard for that discussion was whether it showed bad judgement with sufficient certainty to affect my opinion of a politician. That's not a high standard of proof. I want leaders who I'm confident have excellent judgement not just politicians who I can't prove beyond reasonable doubt have to have bad judgement. And I made it clear that while I thought it was a negative point for any candidate, I didn't think it was a huge deal unless that candidate had been very vocal about the importance of traditional sexual morality.
I have no idea why you chose to drag me in to this long debate. Perhaps if you did something other than pose rhetorical questions and criticize me for being weird and childish, I might be able to figure out what your angle actually is.
As it is, my impression is that you think its fun to badger people who you believe to be prudish and took my comment as an opportunity to have a little fun. If there is some other point, please make it known.
[ December 16, 2011, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Is it consensual?
Yes.
Then I do not see how it is anyone's business as long as political power is not abused to do it beyond trivial "Hey look, Imma senator. We get a +1 to penis girth as a class bonus."
Thank you for your opinion Blayne.
I'm not going to go digging into anyone's private business for sex scandals, but if for some reason I should find out that a person is having sex with a random stranger every day during lunch, I'm gonna consider it an indication of poor judgement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not saying that. I am saying that without the context, it is hard to know. I think that the Rabbit has, sort of, clarified that she wasn't making a general, "people who have unsanctioned sex are reckless addicts" kind of a statement, but that wasn't so clear early on in the discussion. Life in general carries risks that people find acceptable. Sex is no different. I, for one, find casual sex a more acceptable risk than jaywalking.
I think it's clear almost to the point of obviousness that whatever Rabbit meant, she didn't mean 'effectively screened for violence and health by a trustworthy third party' when she talked about frequent anonymous sex. To be clear, are you really insisting that Samprimary might've thought that's what she could've meant? A procedure by which pretty much all physical dangers were avoided to the extent possible?
quote:You are determining "unfulfilling" for these hypothetical people?
And, geeze, skipping lunch to throw back some beers isn't, y'know, possibly concerning? Do you really think that kind of habit might actually be fulfilling to someone, or are you just asserting that one person cannot determine what fulfills another?
I mean, let's just go with an extreme here: skipping lunch to go steal some lightbulbs and smoke crystal meth. Can we say that is unfulfilling, or will we just hear a, "Why?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thanks Rakeesh. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The impression I've got, pages back, is that you are trying to demonstrate to me that no matter how I might define stranger or what large number I might pick, you can find some conceivable mitigating circumstance that would make saying "sex with a very large number of strangers shows bad judgement" invalid. If that's the case. Fine.
I'm actually not trying to demonstrate much of any position of my own. As I said, there's no objection to that statement, just a desire to figure out what exactly your position is when you say it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey guys gingrich is sure still such a great candidate for sane people to endorse, right?
quote:I think that the Rabbit has, sort of, clarified that she wasn't making a general, "people who have unsanctioned sex are reckless addicts" kind of a statement, but that wasn't so clear early on in the discussion.
Sam, Are you really claiming that it wasn't at all clear that I was responding directly to ScottR's statement that "if a someone shows themselves unable to honor the vow of marriage-- a vow commonly made, and generally understood to mean monogamy and sexual fidelity-- they certainly should not be trusted blithely to honor the most powerful office in the world." and that I was saying I do not consider this a fair assessment?
And if you somehow missed that I was responding to the post that immediately preceded it and you missed the numerous references to the political context in my first response to your questioning, Are you claiming that it was still unclear when I said (very early on in this discussion)
quote:this" did not refer to a general case of sexual promiscuity, "this" referred specifically to the sentence that immediately preceded the phrase: i.e. a politician who risked his political career to engage in casual sex.
and
quote:let me clarify what I meant by promiscuity. I was talking about the kinds of sexual behavior that most commonly show up in scandals
and
quote:I think those types of concerns are relevant to a person's fitness for political office.
and
quote:There is a lot of room between strict monogamy and having hundreds of sex partners in a year. There are plenty of shades gray, but then impulse control isn't a binary function either.
(All in the same posts)
After my saying all that, you are claiming that it was still unclear to you whether I was saying that "people who have unsanctioned sex are reckless addicts" or something far more specific about politicians involved in sex scandals?
Please clarify Did you or did you not really believe that in the context of this discussion of political candidates, those statements might reasonably have meant that I was saying any one who had unsanctioned sex was a "reckless addict"? Please, yes or no.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think any of that has much to do with why I was asking the questions I did, which is why it's pretty easy to say that the answer is "no." It's actually pretty phenomenally easy, cause I've never accused you of saying that 'any one who had unsanctioned sex was a "reckless addict"' ...so,
I mean, I was able to get all the clarification I needed a while back anyway, leaving me with little else to do but respond specifically to you insulting me needlessly and saying that I am "unwilling to understand," and all that. I don't feel I'm perpetuating any confusion over your position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Newt Gingrich: the new Andrew Jackson, but with three marriages instead of two.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Newt Gingrich: the new Andrew Jackson, but with three marriages instead of two.
Aw, someone beat me to the Andrew Jackson reference.
Yeah, that's pretty scary. For a guy from a party who spends so much time basking in the reverence of the Framers, it's always interesting when one of them challenges the fundamental basis of separation of powers and a balanced government like this.
Sounds like Gingrich wants to be king.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Gingrich is a seriously scary candidate, and not just because I disagree with his positions. I'm scared by his attitude towards power and his sense of personal exceptionalism. I'm scared by his ability to manipulate crowds. He is dangerous.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Some believe Condie will be the GOP's VP pick. To be honest I think it would be a wise move, especially with the rumors Hillary will be in and Biden out.
Then again unless the GOP picks a good Presidential candidate it won't really matter.
I don't think Biden will be out, people prefer to vote for people they think they "know" as opposed to more unknowns.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:America’s first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates.
I find it truly amazing that Condolezza Rice's foreign policy record is considered a selling point. She certainly has an extensive record, its just full of rather dismal failures.
We are talking about the same woman, who as the nations expert on the East Block completely missed the most important event of the late cold war period, the revocation of the Brezhnev doctrine. She was taken fully by surprise by the collapse of the Berlin Wall. By her own admission, she firmly believed Gorbachev's Perestroika was a rouse pretty much up to the day the Berlin Wall came down. She was a key part of a US foreign policy team that fundamentally misunderstood everything going on in the Soviet Union for more than a decade and resulted in a foreign policy that was largely irrelevant (but very expensive). We won the cold war despite the clueless policies promoted by people like Rice and certainly not because of them.
Then as a follow up act, she played a critical role in the disastrous Iraq an Afghan wars and oversaw an ill conceived Latin American policy that has resulted in through out central America and the Caribbean.
Is there anything she accomplished as Secretary of State that you can really point to as having a lasing positive effect?
But then, I guess I don't see this through the same lens as your typical republican voter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Then again unless the GOP picks a good Presidential candidate it won't really matter.
Is there anyone in the race who you would consider a really good candidate?
Romney? Come on, if he were really a strong candidate why has the entire primary season been a series of flubbed attempts to find someone else. I don't think the real problem with Romney is that he's Mormon. The real problem with Romney is that he lacks solid conservative credentials. I have no idea what he stands for, do you?
He's clearly a very accomplished business man but his political career is decidedly unimpressive. He had one not particularly standout term as Governor. His platform is totally vanilla. I have little doubt that he's an honorable man (unlike Newt Gingrich) but I really have no idea what he stands for politically.
Then there is this weeks favorite, not-Romney, Newt Gingrich. The fact that he's in the lead just shows you how desperate the party is to find anyone that's not Romney. The man's a sociopath. I can't imagine anything worse for the country than electing Pres. Gingrich. If the party is looking for someone to galvanize the opposition, Newt's your man.
Huntsman is running for the 2016 nomination.
Ron Paul has solid support from a niche group but is simply unelectable. His groupies are numerous enough to give him the edge in Iowa, but that's really only because everyone else has just ignored him. There is no way his ideas will withstand the scrutiny that's going to explode the minute any one but his fan base starts taking his candidacy seriously.
Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann have catered so much to the extreme right that they haven't go any chance of attracting moderates. Their already down for the count.
So why isn't there a better option? I think it basically boils down to the fact this will be a race against an incumbent President. Obama is vulnerable but its still going to an uphill battle to beat him. Winning the party nomination, but loosing the election is the best way to kiss your Presidential ambitions good bye forever and any smart politician knows that. Romney and Gingrich (and Paul) are old enough that they this could be their last shot so it matters less to them.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Then again unless the GOP picks a good Presidential candidate it won't really matter.
Is there anyone in the race who you would consider a really good candidate?
Romney? Come on, if he were really a strong candidate why has the entire primary season been a series of flubbed attempts to find someone else. I don't think the real problem with Romney is that he's Mormon. The real problem with Romney is that he lacks solid conservative credentials. I have no idea what he stands for, do you?
He's clearly a very accomplished business man but his political career is decidedly unimpressive. He had one not particularly standout term as Governor. His platform is totally vanilla. I have little doubt that he's an honorable man (unlike Newt Gingrich) but I really have no idea what he stands for politically.
Then there is this weeks favorite, not-Romney, Newt Gingrich. The fact that he's in the lead just shows you how desperate the party is to find anyone that's not Romney. The man's a sociopath. I can't imagine anything worse for the country than electing Pres. Gingrich. If the party is looking for someone to galvanize the opposition, Newt's your man.
Hold on now. You say you have no idea what Romney stands for politically, which is fine. I assume you base this on his record.
I want you to think back to the 2008 election. How much did you know about President Obama? What he stood for? What accomplishments did he have that you knew about?
That is the beauty of the election season. You get to listen to the candidates. I am sure there are things that Romney did as governor that he wouldn't do as President. A state and a country are different beasts.
While I beieve Romney would be strong on economic issues, he doesn't have very much foreign policy experience.
Honestly right now he is really the only candidate that I feel could be electable would be Romney. I won't vote for Newt, I'd rather have Obama. I'm worried Paul would lose the last ounce of sanity he seems to have, and Bachmann already acts insane.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Expecting Obama to not be a more successful Bush 2.0 is kinda one of those out from right field moments that aren't really reasonable to expect.
Also not really an issue, we only expect Democrats to aim for one thing, help forge a more egalitarian society. The primary process for Dem's seem to be to find the most qualified, not a litmus test to see whose the most socialist/leftwing. Something very different from the last two republican primaries of Conservative Survivor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hold on now. You say you have no idea what Romney stands for politically, which is fine. I assume you base this on his record.
No, I'm not basing it on his record as governor. The positions he takes are just too facile. I have no problem with candidates who change their minds in response to changing circumstances -- that's sensible. But the circumstances that cause Romney to change his position are the audience he's playing to and that's worrisome. When we start to look at concrete proposals, his are packed with minutia but no vision.
Obama was very good at articulating vision. He hasn't been able to follow through on most of it, but he had a vision. If Romney has a vision beyond imagining himself in the whitehouse, I have no idea what that vision is. Do you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: [QB] I want you to think back to the 2008 election. How much did you know about President Obama? What he stood for? What accomplishments did he have that you knew about?
Heh. It's a nice rhetorical tactic when it actually reveals a bias towards the familiar.
In this case, and I don't speak for Rabbit, I knew Obama's congressional voting record, I knew he was in favor of a military draw-down in the middle east and closing Gitmo, favored major health care reform legislation, was in favor of ending bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, and had never voted for the war in Iraq. I knew that he was pro-choice, and I knew that while he claimed to be against gay marriage, he did not support national legislation against it. I knew that he was in favor of ending DADT.
These items I can list off the top of my head, without the benefit of notes or much searching of my memory.
quote: While I beieve Romney would be strong on economic issues, he doesn't have very much foreign policy experience.
Why do you know this? Because he says that he will be "strong" on foreign policy? Honestly, this is the issue a lot of people *do* have with Romney, especially among those who might otherwise be persuaded to vote for him. His "prowess" on economics is that he has a background in business administration. Fine, he may know how to run a business, and he certainly knows how to make money- a lot of people who were born wealthy make lots of money, and often in the way that he did. That has very little to do with economics, frankly, and less to do with government than he might like you to believe. Making money and running a government are not the same things. I think that *is* the underlying flaw in his supposed qualifications that, while republicans certainly wouldn't like to *discuss* it, is an issue with his candidacy and with his credentials that bothers quite a few people. He'd be good at economics... why? Because he supports regressive tax reforms that have obviously contributed to the deterioration of public institutions and infrastructure? Because he made a living liquidating companies? Because he's apparently a ridiculously cheap nutcase who puts his family through hell over small amounts of cash? I don't see it, personally.
Obama, yes, had little to his name in terms of qualifying experience. He ran on his ideals- so much so that the inevitable compromises were very painful. What's Romney running on? I want to be President? Ideals are important. If you don't have them, you really could do *anything*, anything that would get you elected.
In a way I wouldn't mind him being elected, if he really is such a spineless piece of flesh. At least he wouldn't make a serious attempt to repeal healthcare legislation that is going to improve the lives of millions of people.
ETA: and as for foreign policy, that's correct. He's as big of a disaster on foreign policy as Dubya was. And is that really what we need right now? Clinton is rather a good example of a President who recognized that every dollar spent on diplomacy and development would save 10 in defense spending. Why the American people have the stomach for someone who would like to put us through another decade of a zombie socialist defense state is quite beyond me.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If only Obama's compromises had all been inevitable.
quote:I won't vote for Newt, I'd rather have Obama.
That's great, Geraine. Respect.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If only Obama's compromises had all been inevitable.
quote:I won't vote for Newt, I'd rather have Obama.
That's great, Geraine. Respect.
I would say some degree of compromise *was* inevitable. What degree that might have been, I cannot say.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Because he's apparently a ridiculously cheap nutcase who puts his family through hell over small amounts of cash?
What are you talking about?
quote:The man's a sociopath. I can't imagine anything worse for the country than electing Pres. Gingrich.
Let's dial down the hyperbole a bit, okay? What makes you think he's a sociopath?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Scott, I was referring to a recent NYT article that talked about what a ridiculously cheap man Romney is- trying to save pennies while he buys multi-million dollar homes. The story that I was referring to specifically was making his family move via U-haul between two multimillion dollar households to save on moving costs.
Can you please name who you're quoting. I don't like having my words mashed up anonymously with someone else's. The casual observer would assume you're quoting one person.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Scott, I was referring to a recent NYT article that talked about what a ridiculously cheap man Romney is- trying to save pennies while he buys multi-million dollar homes. The story that I was referring to specifically was making his family move via U-haul between two multimillion dollar households to save on moving costs.
Here's what it has to say about the trip in the UHaul:
quote:And he has owned a series of multimillion-dollar homes, from a lakefront compound in New Hampshire to a beach house in California, but once rented a U-Haul to move his family’s belongings himself between two of the vacation retreats.
How do you derive that he put his family through hell from the content of that article, Orincoro?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Let's dial down the hyperbole a bit, okay? What makes you think he's a sociopath?
That wasn't hyperbole, that's my honest assessment of Newt Gingrich. I think Newt's a true sociopath. He's glib, superficially charming, manipulative and cunning. He has an inflated sense of his own importance. He thinks he is above the rules. When challenged, he has a notoriously volatile temper and poison tongue. He lacks a sense of moral responsibility and seems incapable of experience shame or feeling guilt. His proposals show callousness and a serious lack of empathy.
He was preaching the importance of traditional morality and pushing a family values agenda, while having an affair with a junior member of staff. When this inconsistency was pointed out, he said that it did't matter he did.
As speaker of the house, he shutdown the government twice and said one of his reasons for doing so was that he'd been asked to use the rear exit on Air Force 1.
He set up a system in the House where positions, which had traditionally been awarded based on experience, were given to the top fund raisers.
He was charged with 88 separate ethics violations. He resigned his seat in the house because he was unwilling to serve after being replaced as speaker.
He talks about seeking God's forgiveness, but never actually expresses any remorse for what he did. He never apologizes to his wife or for hurting his political party. He claims he made these mistakes (like cheating on his wife) because he was so passionate about America. When these issues are brought up, he blames it on smear tactics from the left wing.
I really do think he's an egomaniac with no conscience and very clear sociopathic tendencies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he shutdown the government twice and said one of his reasons for doing so was that he'd been asked to use the rear exit on Air Force 1.
:quibble:
My understanding is that he was torked because Clinton wouldn't meet with him on Air Force 1 as they were traveling together. (And then Clinton's staff released photos of them meeting together)
I don't disagree that he seems to be slime. But sociopath? And there's nothing you can imagine that would be worse for America than Pres. Gingrich? I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of at least one thing that would be worse: a high altitude nuclear explosion above the East Coast would suck much worse than a Gingrich presidency.
Don't get me wrong: I'd actively campaign for Obama before I'd cast a vote for Newt. But "worst thing EVAR" he ain't.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hell is moving in a U-Haul? Standards in hell have really gone down. In the grand old days in the Hell bureaucracy we used to really rake people over the coals.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hell is moving in a U-Haul? Standards in hell have really gone down. In the grand old days in the Hell bureaucracy we used to really rake people over the coals.
Bless your heart.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And he has owned a series of multimillion-dollar homes, from a lakefront compound in New Hampshire to a beach house in California, but once rented a U-Haul to move his family’s belongings himself between two of the vacation retreats.
How do you derive that he put his family through hell from the content of that article, Orincoro?
I dunno, to be fair, the article just gave me the impression that he's a nutty penny pincher. I didn't go back and re-read it, that's just how it sounded to me. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't disagree that he seems to be slime. But sociopath? And there's nothing you can imagine that would be worse for America than Pres. Gingrich?
Perhaps you are under the impression that sociopath implies serious antisocial behavior such as rape and murder. This is not correct. The "successful psychopath" is something widely recognized in the psychological literature. Several studies have found that its fairly common for leaders in business and psychopaths to fit the same psychological profile as criminal psychopaths. Many psychopathic characteristics, such as charm, manipulativeness, callousness, inflated sense of self importance, and lack of conscience can be an advantage in a competitive business or political environment. The single factor that separates successful psychopaths from criminal psychopaths is self discipline or conscientiousness. Based on what I know, Newt Gingrich fits the profile of the successful psychopath better than any current American politician.
quote:And there's nothing you can imagine that would be worse for America than Pres. Gingrich? I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of at least one thing that would be worse: a high altitude nuclear explosion above the East Coast would suck much worse than a Gingrich presidency.
Conceded. How about if I amend my statement to say, "Worst thing for America that is even a remotely likely outcome of the 2012 elections."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wasn't there something about moving his dog on the roof of his car as well? Perhaps, Gov. Romney should leave the moving to professionals from now on.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah. that was something I was thinking of. A much worse example than just the U-haul thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That was a vacation (to a campground in Canada that I've actually been to) rather than a move, I could see holding a grudge over that episode.
But the linked NYT article, just depicts him as shunning spending on things like sports cars in favour of real estate and his wife. Oh, and he was hesitant to quit a well paying job. It's like the article is trying to say something like, "you're being rich 'wrong'" Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, I am actively holding a grudge over the Romney faith speech, the one that TomDavidson aptly summed up as
quote: I believe in Christ, unlike some icky people. Consequently, I am more like you evangelical Christians than I'm like an icky person.
and included
quote:"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.
quote:I dunno, to be fair, the article just gave me the impression that he's a nutty penny pincher. I didn't go back and re-read it, that's just how it sounded to me. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Dude, you said he put his family through hell.
Maybe next time you feel inclined to use such strong language, you can find your way to making sure the situation is worthy of the usage.
quote:I don't disagree that he seems to be slime. But sociopath? And there's nothing you can imagine that would be worse for America than Pres. Gingrich?
Perhaps you are under the impression that sociopath implies serious antisocial behavior such as rape and murder. This is not correct. The "successful psychopath" is something widely recognized in the psychological literature. Several studies have found that its fairly common for leaders in business and psychopaths to fit the same psychological profile as criminal psychopaths. Many psychopathic characteristics, such as charm, manipulativeness, callousness, inflated sense of self importance, and lack of conscience can be an advantage in a competitive business or political environment. The single factor that separates successful psychopaths from criminal psychopaths is self discipline or conscientiousness. Based on what I know, Newt Gingrich fits the profile of the successful psychopath better than any current American politician.
Is your evaluation of Gingrich's character of a clinical caliber?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Is your evaluation of Gingrich's character of a clinical caliber?
Certainly not but I'm not trying to either treat him, convict him of a crime, or evaluate a request for his parole. I'm evaluating his suitability to be president of the US. The bar isn't the same.
When we are talking about electing someone to the most powerful office in the world, reasonable suspicion of psychopathic tendencies ought to be deal breaker. I think his public record justifies that reasonable suspicion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You shouldn't use the word "sociopath" (nor follow it up with a discussion on the clinical meaning of the word) and apply it to an individual when you can't show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
The man's a scumbag. There's a lot of low hanging fruit to reach-- why flirt with terminology that may not apply, and that muddles the conversation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm sorry, Scott. I think that you need to clearly define "scumbag" and show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You shouldn't use the word "sociopath" (nor follow it up with a discussion on the clinical meaning of the word) and apply it to an individual when you can't show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
Sociopathy isn't a recognized mental disorder. There is no such thing as a clinical diagnosis of sociopathy. It's a psychological condition widely discussed and studied in the psychological literature but not a clinical diagnosis.
Newt Gingrich has at least 2/3rds of the character traits psychologist list as being common among sociopaths. (Note I'm talking here about the science of psychology not psychiatry or clinical psychology.)
Scumbag is a pretty general term that doesn't tell you anything about why I think Gingrich is particularly unfit to be president.
Newt's public record strongly suggests that he is a self centered egotist, who is deficient in empathy, has no conscience and thinks he is above the rules. He is a charismatic manipulator who has a nasty temper and is willing to hurt millions to make a petty point. Scumbag doesn't say those things. Sociopath does.
[ December 20, 2011, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm sorry, Scott. I think that you need to clearly define "scumbag" and show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
Weren't you there when Scott was elected to the council of appropriate terminology and degree of hyperbole?
Because I was there. I voted against it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Actually, that wasn't so much about Scott, as about our general (and by "our" I mean people on the internet that I encounter) tend to get bogged down in parsing minutia and lose sight of bigger picture truths on which they may pretty much agree. Instead of generally agreeing on whether, for example Kim Jong Il was a loon, we are debating whether "psychopath" is actually "crazy" or not.
I think that we too often start wandering around in the trees and fail to appreciate the forest.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
When you say forest, do you mean old growth, or secondary growth?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If only Obama's compromises had all been inevitable.
quote:I won't vote for Newt, I'd rather have Obama.
That's great, Geraine. Respect.
I'll go one step further and say if Newt is the candidate, I'll donate to Obama's campaign and actually vote for him. I just hate Newt that much.
As for Romney, I understand Rabbit's and Orincoro's points. I can see how Romney has been unclear on what he stands for. I do think he has been taking a more firm stance on many issues, especially in the debates. I understand some of these stances are different than those he has taken in the past. You can call it flip flopping, others will call it changing his viewpoint.
I do think Romney has experience in the private sector that would help him with his knowledge on economic issues. His work with the Olympics was a positive thing as well.
I know I talk badly about Obama a lot, but I don't dislike him nearly as much as I undoubtedly imply. I don't think he is as much the problem as his administration is. With his administration causing him issues such as Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and the auto bailouts, I can't really blame President Obama as much as the people he appointed.
To be honest I really believe Hillary is the only one that hasn't really caused a huge issue. I think he would be wise to replace most of his administration. If he were smart he would then tell Biden sorry and pick up Hillary. That would sweeten the deal for a lot of the independent voters.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I don't think Biden will be out, people prefer to vote for people they think they "know" as opposed to more unknowns.
In what reality is Hillary an unknown? Almost anyone you poll is going to find her more of a known than biden.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The very idea that business acumen is somehow vital for a successful presidency strikes me as ludicrous. And many "businessman" presidents were less than successful. Truman ran a clothing store that went bankrupt. Bush Jr. ran several businesses into the ground. Jimmy Carter, a successful businessman in his own right, presided over a decidedly weak economy with slow growth, as did George Bush Sr, who was a very successful business owner.
Nobody talks about the importance of a law degree as part of a President's CV, and yet the majority of presidents have had law degrees, including Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Clinton, and Roosevelt (the list does include infamously unsuccessful presidents as well, but still). Romney has a law degree, but you don't hear him discussing the fact that he studied for 4 years to get it. Why is that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm sorry, Scott. I think that you need to clearly define "scumbag" and show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
Eh-- it's a general enough term that I'm comfortable with its application to Gingrich. I have only to consider his public behavior (well-documented; irrefutable; easily known).
Sociopath, on the other hand, is a term that directs one's mind very clearly toward a certain path. To make the label stick one has to have both a study in psychology and access to the individual's private life (or extensive access to others who know of their private life).
Rabbit: I beg your pardon-- maybe we're using the term 'clinical' differently. I'll note that sociopathy is somewhat synonymous with psychopathy and interchangeable with anti-social personality disorder according to DSM-IV.
If my research on the subject is wrong, let me know.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm sorry, Scott. I think that you need to clearly define "scumbag" and show a clinically valid reason for your use of the word.
Weren't you there when Scott was elected to the council of appropriate terminology and degree of hyperbole?
Because I was there. I voted against it.
It's too late for regrets. The sybillant is mine alone. The Grammoir and the Pedant are my willing servitors, and the council does me obeisance.
E'en now, my people rise to the cry of 'Etiquant! Civlizate! Clarytie!' Their hymns shall strike the sky, unravel the winds, and we shall pour upon you like sunlight.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit: I beg your pardon-- maybe we're using the term 'clinical' differently. I'll note that sociopathy is somewhat synonymous with psychopathy and interchangeable with anti-social personality disorder according to DSM-IV.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "synonymous" and "interchangeable". There is certainly a lot of overlap in the way the different terms are used. ASPD is a technical clinical term. Psychopathy and sociopathy are not and are widely used in both common english and the scholarly psychological literature to describe a set of behavior patterns that are nonclinical. Given the extremely widespread use of the these terms by both layman and experts in nonclinical contexts, I find your insistence that they are only appropriate in a clinical setting rather silly.
If you seriously object to the word and not my assessment, find me another word that communicates my concern that Newt is a narcissistic charismatic manipulator and pathological liar, who is deficient in empathy and lacks a moral conscience. Give me a word that says I think Newt is a megalomaniac who would have absolutely no qualms about hurting millions of people for insignificant personal gain.
If your argument is really about the word and not whether the above assessment is sufficiently supported to justify serious concern in a potential President, then find me a better word. Scumbag just doesn't say what I want to say and repeating that whole explanation each time is too much of a mouthful.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Maybe this is a better way to put it.
I find Newt's particular combination of charisma, egotism and evident lack of a moral conscience make him far more prone to serious abuse of power than generic scumbaggery.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Given the extremely widespread use of the these terms by both layman and experts in nonclinical contexts, I find your insistence that they are only appropriate in a clinical setting rather silly.
Rabbit, you're the one who said:
quote:Perhaps you are under the impression that sociopath implies serious antisocial behavior such as rape and murder. This is not correct. The "successful psychopath" is something widely recognized in the psychological literature. Several studies have found that its fairly common for leaders in business and psychopaths to fit the same psychological profile as criminal psychopaths.
YOU brought the science of psychology into this discussion, not me. I don't think that Newt fits the layman's understanding of what it means to be a sociopath; and I'm not sure he fits the bill for the psychologist's definition (because I don't have the information or expertise to make that judgment).
I'll concede that he is egotistic, combative, hypocritical, untrustworthy, and unethical; those are elements of his character that we have evidence for.
Unempathetic? Meh-- since you've laid that label on me before, I'm afraid that your implementation of it here means very little. Plus, no real evidence. Manipulator? He's a politician. Pathological liar? I dunno-- he's untrustworthy, but "pathological" takes it to a realm I don't know that we have information about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:YOU brought the science of psychology into this discussion, not me. I don't think that Newt fits the layman's understanding of what it means to be a sociopath; and I'm not sure he fits the bill for the psychologist's definition (because I don't have the information or expertise to make that judgment).
This is a false dichotomy. The words sociopath and psychopath have been used in a wide range of ways by both experts and layman. There is even substantive disagreement among experts about whether it should be considered a disorder at all or if its just a bunch of traits frequently shared by particularly recalcitrant nasty people. What we do know from the scholarly psychological work is that there is a set character traits which are very strong predictors for future abusive, unethical and anti-social behavior. So strong that it is frequently claimed that sociopaths are incapable of changing their behavior. Even clinically, this is never a black and white diagnosis. There is a long list of behaviors and character traits associated with ASPD, the more of them a person has the more likely they are to continue behaving in dangerous abusive and anti-social ways.
Furthermore, there is no contradiction inherent in a person relying on scientific or scholarly work to make a lay judgement. Evidence can be consistent with a particular scholarly theory and yet insufficient to make a definitive judgement. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient evidence. When the scientific evidence is not definitive, the ethical choice is never to just throw the science out. What do I consider the ethical way to use the science when it is not definitive? The precautionary principle suggests we should act cautiously to minimize the risks. That means we weigh (as best we can) the probability that we are misinterpreting the evidence against the potential harm of choosing badly. When the risks of an action are high enough, it is both rational and ethical to oppose that action vehemently on scientific grounds even in the absence scientific certainty.
In my opinion, Newt Gingrich's public behavior indicates a sufficiently high probability that he is a sociopath who would abuse the power of Presidency in dangerous ways. I believe that danger justifies my active opposition to his presidential campaign. "Sociopath" succinctly expresses my reasons for opposing him.
If you do not think the evidence is sufficient to justify use of the term, don't use it, but don't keep accusing me of using hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating for effect, I find the evidence that Newt Gingrich is a dangerous sociopath very compelling and something voters should seriously consider.
[ December 21, 2011, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you do not think the evidence is sufficient to justify use of the term, don't use it, but don't keep accusing me of using hyperbole. I'm not exaggerating for effect, I find the evidence that Newt Gingrich is a dangerous sociopath very compelling and something voters should seriously consider.
The hyperbole portion of my criticism was tied to your claim that electing Gingrich would be the worst thing that could happen to America.
ETA: And I'm afraid, no-- since I don't feel the evidence fits the bill, I will continue to criticize the use of the word 'sociopath' in describing Gingrich.
[ December 21, 2011, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Unempathetic? Meh-- since you've laid that label on me before, I'm afraid that your implementation of it here means very little.
You've said plenty of stuff that indicates you are an empathetic husband, father and meat space friend. I don't question that at all.
You have, however, lead me to believe on more than one occasion that hurting me, in particular, does not concern you and that you do not consider empathy for people you know only online to be a virtue worth seeking. Please correct me if I've misunderstood you on this.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You have misunderstood.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You have misunderstood.
I have a hard time reconciling that with some of the very pointed remarks you have made over the years.
I'd be willing to believe that, rather than being a jerk, you just aren't communicating how you feel effectively and aren't sufficiently invested in it to make the effort to clarify. Except you've state in no uncertain terms that you'd rather I consider you a jerk than speculate about your intent.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I haven't been kind always. That's in the evidence.
But I'm not inclined to explain.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I haven't been kind always. That's in the evidence.
It's also an understatement.
quote:But I'm not inclined to explain.
You are at least very predictable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You are at least very predictable.
:preens:
It's one of my best traits!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You are at least very predictable.
:preens:
It's one of my best traits!
I'm not sure whether to respond with "One man's meat is another man's poison." or "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little mans" so I'm going with both.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Consistency is the hobgoblin of little mans
We prefer the term "dwarves."
PS: The real quote is
quote:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Enjoy!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes, despite my typo, I am very familiar with Emerson's exact wording. I recently did an investigation of this premise for reasons completely unrelated to this forum and was surprised how many people have expressed this idea, often in very similar words. The oldest version of it I found is attributed to Cicero who said.
quote:No well-informed person ever imputed inconsistency to another for changing his mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I, on the other hand, am highly suspicious of Romney's capacity for flip-flopping.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I, on the other hand, am highly suspicious of Romney's capacity for flip-flopping.
Agreed. Romney's flip-flopping concerns me almost as much as Ron Paul's 4 decades of dogged consistency, but for different reasons.
Too much consistency indicates a ridged devotion to ideology and an unwillingness or inability to reconsider issues in the light of new data or novel proposals. It raises concerns about the kind of intransigence that results in staying the course come hell or high water.
Too little consistency suggests a lack of conviction and raises questions about sincerity and transparency. It raises real concern that the candidate is far more interested in getting power than how they will use it.
Romney's flip-flops bother me because he hasn't offered any particularly persuasive explanation for why he changed his mind. Nothing he's said seems half as likely as that he is simply willing to say what ever he thinks will appeal to the audience. He hasn't articulated any kind of a clear vision or philosophy so the flip-flops leave me without any clear idea where he really stands.
It bothers me to say that because, unlike most of the candidates, I don't think Romney is a lying scumbag. Based on everything I've heard (and I have friends who've worked closely with him), he's a very decent and competent man. People who know him seem to hold him in high esteem even if they don't like his politics. You never really know about anyone so he could have all sorts of skeletons in his closet, but I'd be quite surprised if does.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Romney has, in fact, doggedly insisted that he *hasnt* changed his mind, when it is obvious to everyone that he absolutely has, or that if he hasn't, he has a very odd reckoning of his previous positions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Christine O'Donnell said she likes Romney because he's so steadfast in his beliefs. When asked about the fact that almost no one thinks that, she said that she likes that he has the flexibility to change his mind. And then said that she liked that since he changed his mind, he's been steadfast in supporting the new things he believes in.
Not a witch indeed.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh my god yes! I saw the clip of her saying "He's been consistent since he changed his mind!" and I died. That was priceless.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Has anyone seen the clip of the Barbara Walters interview with Herman Cain where she asks him what cabinet position he would want?
Cain - "I think maybe Secretary of defense."
Walters - "What?!"
That was pretty amusing. You don't normally see journalists break character that blatantly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sometimes, I envy the kind of monumental delusion that people like Cain are capable of. It's obviously served him well and been reinforced in his life, and it's only here in an environment of intense scrutiny that it starts to fall apart because he's honestly too ridiculous to comprehend.
He's so far removed from the metacognitive ability to even comprehend how he's woefully incompetent for the jobs that he insists he would be great at. He just thinks he'll belly up and make it work cause he's awesome! And this blindness defines him and makes him who he is. He's a walking dunning-kruger effect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Things got really goony in congress. Well, goonier than usual.
Well, maybe he could do well in rapid response military management? Clearly that's what his corporate pizza experience points towards!
It's so nice that Cain has turned out to be such a complete jackass, because it validates those of us who've been saying so back when the ticker was maybe only 65% jackass, and actual less-than-fanatic supporters would stick with him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The being a jackass thing is still ... I mean it still amazes me that this had any room left to be relevant to his candidacy, given how utterly absurd and ignorant most of his policies were.
We were all there. We all saw 9-9-9. He obviously was designing policy based on a wild, ronlambertian, vapid overconfidence in the ability to effectively govern and craft governing policy. his incompetence and overconfidence was flat-out dangerous in multiple fields, chiefly economic and military. He's a great candidate for a country that wholly and passionately wants to destroy itself by electing terrible leaders.
fittingly conservatives seemed to be totally okay with his policies? it took months of sexual abuse controversy to pull him from the lead? he's replaced by Newt "yanno what this country needs, child janitor bootstraps" Gingrich?
This is comedy!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no, wait, it's tragedy
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: no, wait, it's tragedy
"tragicomedy?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: no, wait, it's tragedy
"tragicomedy?"
"american politics?"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's Saint Jimmy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It's Saint Jimmy.
????
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Probably could put this somewhere better, but it's marginally related to that moment when people were cheering Perry for having executed many people:
quote:The European Commission has imposed tough new restrictions on the export of anaesthetics used to execute people in the US, in a move that will exacerbate the already extreme shortage of the drugs in many of the 34 states that still practice the death penalty. ... In 2009 the only American manufacturer of sodium thiopental, the Illinois-based Hospira, suspended production because it was suffering commercially as a result of having its drug connected to executions. Then this summer, a Danish manufacturer of pentobarbital, Lundbeck, blocked the sale of its product trademarked Nembutal to any penal institution in the US.
Many states still have stocks of the two sedatives, but many are running low or passing their expiry date, leading to ever more desperate measures.
quote:Earlier this year the Obama administration made a direct appeal to Germany asking for supplies of the anaesthetics, only to be roundly rebuffed by the German vice chancellor Philipp Rosler. "I noted the request and declined," Rosler told Der Spiegel.
Woot!
I'm surprised that the situation would be so serious already. And realistically, I'm sure the US will eventually find a different source or just shoot prisoners in the Utah style, but I still have to give props to Europe for putting their money where their mouth is.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Does anyone else hate the word "expiry" as much as I do?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: no, wait, it's tragedy
"tragicomedy?"
Dramedy
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Arguably I find shooting to be more dignified way to go anyways if given the choice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: You could call it Utah style as I suppose they did give up virtually last, but you can't actually be shot in Utah anymore unless you are one of three inmates who specifically requested it before the ban went into effect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I assume a lethal drug that has passed its expiration date kills you less effectively?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: That's good news. They didn't point out the ban in the article, but it's good to hear.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I assume a lethal drug that has passed its expiration date kills you less effectively?
The risk is that it doesn't work properly, like still feel pain or still conscious etc.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have been found eligible for Virginia GOP presidential primary.
Every other campaign has been disqualified, many due to submitting false signatures on their petitions.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the election cycle that keeps on giving, comedy-wise.
"Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which they would recover."I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,""
I didn't know Mitt Romney even watched TV!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's fun observing the reactions of conservative voters with respect to remarks such as Gingrich's campaign blaming their own incompetence to a Pearl Harbor inflicted on them. Had a Democrat, or a liberal, much less a liberal democrat, made such a remark it's fun to imagine how hysterically angry much of the Right would be. Socialist, coward, fool, out of touch, etc etc just a few of the things we could expect to hear.
Just a sign of how far self-pity runs among Republicans these days, to my mind. Pearl Harbor? Really? How is that not still mainstream political news, instead of that hypocritical schmuck getting weepy about his mother (the first time ever for him to get openly emotional, so far as I know) at an event for mothers? Oh, but it 'humanizes' him, according to pundits.
Well, sure, lots of human beings would totally ham up and lie for the cameras like that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not to mention Mitt Romney suddenly discovering he has a biting sense of humor.
"Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which they would recover."I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,""
I didn't know Mitt Romney even watched TV!
Apparently he did fifty years ago.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... Every other campaign has been disqualified, many due to submitting false signatures on their petitions.
Silver lining, maybe they found some good evidence to justify Voter ID laws Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,""
I didn't know Mitt Romney even watched TV!
I daresay his happen-stance is more becoming Black Bess and the Constable of the Penny-Dreadfuls
Sir, you have been told Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The thing that's giving me the most entertainment in this ring of the primary is: Ron Paul!
Here's why: he's completely hopeless as a candidate. Guaranteed. While he has more money and campaign infrastructure (and a small cluster of diehards who endlessly rally support for him, primary after hopeless primary), a substantial portion of the party hates him. Many surveys ask questions along the lines of "Do you think that X would be an acceptable nominee?" for each candidate. Some candidates (eg. Santorum, Perry, Bachmann) are low in the polls but rate well on this question, meaning lots of voters see them as valid second (or third) choices, which can translate into real votes as other candidates drop out. Paul, however, always does terribly on this question, with almost two-thirds of voters in many surveys calling him flat-out unacceptable.
Outside of American conservatives, his position is even worse. He does not have moderate support. He does not have liberal support. Conservatives are polarized in a way which works reliably against him: the effect that validity fracture like his has on an election allows that you can easily bet heaps of money that he would lose a 1v1 matchup against pretty much anyone who the democratic party could offer for the election. Against Obama, it's particularly grim; it disheartens the conservative base and catapults Obama to victory with such force that he could be (but wouldn't be) carried merely on the backs of people who would vote for Obama just because he's not a man who wants to put us on the gold standard and who legitimately cannot understand how we could possibly be better off with food and drug regulatory government policy than without. Melamine must taste pretty good, I suppose, in milk, or even in koolaid.
So, on the surface, it's very, very profoundly simple: even if Paul stood a ghost of a chance at the primary, he would hand Obama a win if he won the Republican primary. I would find a Republican Paul nomination to be utterly fantastic, because the debates would be actually interesting, and I could just pack up and go home, because the election's already over.
But why's it so entertaining?
Because there is a small and active bubble of complete Ron Paul delusion that exists and defies comparison. A really adorable core of Ron Paul supporters who make proclamations that would be bold even if studies of national polling and electoral/primary probabilities ever demonstrated any viability of the man as a candidate: that Paul could not only contend with Obama, but that he would utterly destroy Obama. You won't see the same phenomenon existing for the rest of the GOP's also-ran hopelesses, but every day I come across a reason why Paul would win versus Obama, and every day it's even more divorced from reality than the last.
I'm going to start clipping quotes, man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A conspiracy theory idiot I work with is a big Paul fan. His latest gem was suggesting, after I challenged him on the notion that the US only intervenes for oil or money by pointing to Serbia (he paused for several seconds, I could see him trying to think up a reason), was to say and this is almost a direct quote, "Just wait, you'll see, that was just the puppetmasters setting the stage for Russia. Russia's next, it's so obvious."
Anyway, this fruitcup didn't like it much when I pointed out that (according to him) that when the USA becomes a Third World country inside a generation, and everything is in the crapper and all is chaos and misery, he didn't like it when I pointed out that if the only way your guy could ever be elected was if he was literally the last, desperation resort, that it was hardly an *endorsement*.
Other gems: the reason humans and other primates bear so much genetic similarities to one another is because we're all built from things on the periodic table, so similarities are to be expected. Another was when he was telling a story of how, in his class (he's since been fired and blacklisted in the county) a kid in one of his elementary school classes claimed Lebron James was his father; upon hearing that, he told the kid flatly that that wasn't true, his mother was making that up. Effectively called a kid's mother a lying trollop to his face in class.
And man, does he love Ron Paul! Heh. Usually I'd have to go to the Internet for this sort of weird craziness in my politics, but it's different when you hear it with your own ears.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There could be some argument that intervention in Serbia would have some geopolitical effect as to weaken Russian influence but it is fairly tenuous. It was mostly a NATO operation regardless wasn't it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, sure, there are plenty of honest, plausible motives why we got involved there besides 'do the right thing!' After all, we frequently don't do the right thing when some asshole somewhere decides some race murder needs to happen. Whole world, really. But for oil or resources? Naw. Absurd.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Probably unless there's some vested interest by American telecomm companies who wish to invest in emerging markets and want a friendlier government to work with. いま... This is speculative though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Theories such as that only hold up if it's suggested the politicians behind things are *only* beholden to such companies, and that those same politicians don't stand to lose more elsewhere than those companies would gain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Isn't it a proof of fact though in American politics though that they are in *fact* beholden to corporate interest? Also what *could* they lose elsewhere? Its a relative minor intervention in a rather small and contained conflict zone there's little risk of a quagmire.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not as simple as that-and what, now we DID do it for money, for telecomm corporate money?-but even if it was, beholden doesn't mean completely owned, but if it did unless our government was *only* beholden to telecomm corporations, in such an outlook they would also be beholden elsewhere and as you said the scope there was small, the benefits minimal. Surely Corporate America (ohhhhh scary!) could have made more efficient use of American political and military power than in that part of the world.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And man, does he love Ron Paul! Heh. Usually I'd have to go to the Internet for this sort of weird craziness in my politics, but it's different when you hear it with your own ears.
Even more so than getting to see it in person, it's that Paul is a really strange case in that he inspires so much zealous delusion from a cadre of followers. Never has such a complete non-starter received so much persistent talk about himself as though he were not a non-starter. And the habits of those who seriously believe he could win in the national election are, well, fun.
If a person legitimately says something like "Ron Paul is going to win the presidency because Democrats will desert Obama in droves to vote for him." you are listening to a person to whom reality does not factor in terms of predicting races.
If you find one who is willing to bet money on Paul's success, you have found an easy source of money.
(Like the guy here who is quite literally named "Mark," and I don't think he would think it's funny why I think that's funny)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would hope for Ron Paul if only to get interesting debates.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Happy caucus day! Iowa is the first state to vote on candidates today. I was actually going to be in Iowa today but I wasn't sure if the caucus would snarl traffic near cities and decided to avoid it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Happy caucus day! Iowa is the first state to vote on candidates today. I was actually going to be in Iowa today but I wasn't sure if the caucus would snarl traffic near cities and decided to avoid it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thank heavens we can all just forget about Iowa after tonight for the next four years.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Last night I set my radio to non static to wake me up in the morning. It turned out to be whatever station plays Rush Limbaugh at 10 am. Gosh I hate that guy. I am especially offended by his "Talent on loan from G-d" tagline. How about "Talent G-d had no particular use for and left lying around in an easily reachable place"? Then he spent 5 minutes complaining about Operation Chaos. I guess he was mad people weren't crediting him for inventing it. Anyway.
I used to enjoy pollster.com, but now it's part of Huffpost? Not happy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Then he spent 5 minutes complaining about Operation Chaos. I guess he was mad people weren't crediting him for inventing it.
"You asked me once," said O'Brien, "what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is Limbaugh's recording studio."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Chief O'Brien? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In case folks were wondering, with 95.5% of precincts reporting Santorum is leading Romney by 80 votes, and they both have the same percentage of the votes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
97%, and within 44 votes of each other. I think it being basically a tie, is good for Romney. Santorum has virtually no presence in New Hampshire and he only has another week to stump there.
Not that I want Romney to win the election, but I sure as heck don't understand why Santorum is suddenly in contention. It only cements my bias that Iowans are as fickle as any other group of voters.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Blackblade, I think Santorum's surge has everything to do with timing. There's been a general sense of 'anyone but Romney' coming from Republicans this whole campaign season. Every candidate had their turn in the spotlight. They all messed up in one way or another, and it just happened to be Santorum's turn coming into the primary.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Strider: I've heard that theory as well, and that had the primary come a week later it would have been all Romney, but I just don't see how people so easily throw their votes around. I mean I understand "not Romney" but is there really anybody who says, "Anybody but Romney?" Also, this slew of candidates who have risen to prominence and then fallen to oblivion happens so fast I really feel like Iowans can't be predicted, you just do your best and expect nonsense to reign.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
One thing I did notice is that Romney carried virtually all the counties with large caucuses, and focused his efforts in the North East and South West. Santorum basically won way more smaller caucuses.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm not sure how many people really say "anybody but Romney", but I have gotten the sense that many republicans would rather not have Romney, and so keep flirting with whatever candidate happens to be surging at any given moment. It's difficult to make sense of Santorum's showing tonight otherwise. It's not like he's been polling well there the whole time right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you look at the actual number of votes these people are getting, the whole thing comes across as rather silly.
Paul is running like 3,000 votes behind Santorum and Romney. Third place is still pretty decent for a caucus, but come on, how is that an important enough number for them all to really be basically tired. You can't really take those numbers, or Iowa, and upscale it to pull statistical significance in anyway as to electability or what not.
It only proves how misguided the media is in hyping Iowa, and how silly it is that Iowa goes first.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean I understand "not Romney" but is there really anybody who says, "Anybody but Romney?"
There are plenty who state plainly they intend to vote for whichever candidate in the GOP primary stands to prevent Romney from being the candidate, and that all the other candidates are acceptable in this regard.
The reasons vary but you end up with the Anyone But Romney vote cycling with help from this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ron Paul may have officially come in third in tonight's Iowa caucuses, but if his organizational strategy went off as planned, it is possible that the Texas Congressman is actually the real winner of the state's Republican nominating contest.
Senior advisors for Paul's coalitions team told Business Insider this week that the campaign's organizational strategy was focused not only on getting as many votes as they can, but in making sure that their volunteers stuck around after the voting to make sure that they were nominated as delegates to the county's Republican convention — the first step towards being appointed as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.
That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are actually non-binding — it's technically just a straw poll. The only thing that will get Paul's — or any other candidate's — Iowa supporters to Tampa next year is if they stuck around and volunteered, or were elected, as delegates.
Or not! Or maybe!
MORE POPCORN FOR THE BROKEN U.S. PRIMARY SYSTEM
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Chief O'Brien?
A reference to 1984 by George Orwell.
From what I hear the big thing about Iowa is that it'll thin the herd, anyone who doesn't do well out of Iowa who wasn't already doing decent will fold em in.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Ron Paul may have officially come in third in tonight's Iowa caucuses, but if his organizational strategy went off as planned, it is possible that the Texas Congressman is actually the real winner of the state's Republican nominating contest.
Senior advisors for Paul's coalitions team told Business Insider this week that the campaign's organizational strategy was focused not only on getting as many votes as they can, but in making sure that their volunteers stuck around after the voting to make sure that they were nominated as delegates to the county's Republican convention — the first step towards being appointed as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.
That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are actually non-binding — it's technically just a straw poll. The only thing that will get Paul's — or any other candidate's — Iowa supporters to Tampa next year is if they stuck around and volunteered, or were elected, as delegates.
Or not! Or maybe!
MORE POPCORN FOR THE BROKEN U.S. PRIMARY SYSTEM
Chaos.... Reeiiiggnnss... Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Bachman is set to drop out any moment now, and Perry has gone back to Texas to determine if he will continue his campaign.
Anyone see Newt's speech last night? I thought he was going to combust. He looked so mad during the speech.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No but do you have a link?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's also worth noting that gingrich was the prime target of SuperPAC's flexing their muscles:
quote:Born out of a Supreme Court decision in 2010 that lifted the lid on campaign contributions in a case known as Citizens United, the shadowy but entirely legal groups spent $12.9 million through Dec. 31, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
Much of that was directed toward the 122,000 Iowa Republicans who cast ballots Tuesday. The largest spender was a super PAC supporting Romney called Restore Our Future.
It is run by Carl Forti, the political director of Romney's failed 2008 campaign. Restore Our Future's top fundraiser was a fundraiser for Romney's current presidential campaign until he joined the super PAC last summer.
Hard-hitting TV ads funded by the group sank the campaign of onetime Iowa front-runner Newt Gingrich with a $4.1 million onslaught of TV ads in the final weeks before the caucuses. The former House speaker finished a distant fourth Tuesday, with half as many votes as Romney.
Unlike traditional political action committees, super PACs cannot legally communicate with the campaign they are supporting. So Romney could - and did - claim that he wasn't coordinating with Restore Our Future.
"It's the Tony Soprano strategy," said Dennis Goldford, a professor of political science at Drake University in Des Moines who has studied the caucuses up close for nearly three decades. "Your hands are clean, but you let somebody else do the dirty work for you."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Today's summary on the daily what: pretty straightforward essentials.
Santorum is such a dope. Those students actually come off as dirt stupid, though. God, I'm getting flashbacks to all the students I've had who can't defend their views but just assert them over and over.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting note: Romney got almost exactly the same number of votes in 2012 as he did in 2008 in Iowa. It was off by less than a dozen, I believe.
Despite what the mainstream media says, I continue to believe that if the others drop out fast enough (and losing Bachmann and Perry (if Perry is really out) this fast was a big help) then Romney is toast. 75% of the vote is looking for someone else, and even if that vote is split 50-50, both those candidates make Romney the number three guy in every race. With those two out, perhaps Huntsman is out after New Hampshire, it's really down to Santorum, Paul, Gingrich and Romney. There will be a big shake-up, and votes will start to realign. These are still some pretty small states in the long run. If we lose one or two of these other guys, like Gingrich, who may know he's going to lose but might stand aside if it means Romney loses as well (since he HATES Romney), then Santorum becomes the winner of this game of hot potato.
It could still happen, but it relies on politicians giving up on the presidency rather fast. Romney was so praiseful of Santorum in his "victory" speech because he wants as many also-rans in the race as possible to dilute the anyone-but-Romney vote. Every drop out that comes makes his victory less than sure.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It is nice, but its far from original. The first time I heard this argument/analogy was back in the 70s in regard to the Panama Canal zone.
The video reminds of what I see as the big Ron Paul problem. Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about what I see as some of the major problems facing America but the solutions he is proposing for these problems are ludicrous.
Unfortunately, a lot of people who agree with him about the problems are embracing his solutions with out criticism because no one else is even addressing the problems. And on the flip side, criticisms of his solutions end up persuading people to discount his analysis of the problems.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the politicians with strong political ideals are the bane of good government. Before I go any further, let me explain what I mean by strong political ideals -- I mean fierce loyalty and near religious devotion to a political ideology that include not only a vision for how society should function but also moral commitment to a set of methods for achieving that goal. In America today, tea partiers devoted intransigently to reducing taxes and the size of government are examples of excessive political idealism. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the OWS people religiously devoted to the consensus decision making model, no matter the cost.
Governments exist in order to make it possible for people with conflicting interests to live together harmoniously. If there were no conflicts, there would be no need for laws or courts or police or armies, in short no need for politicians or governments. When peoples interests are in conflict, its impossible for everyone to get everything they want. That makes finding acceptable compromises the central function of government. A good comprise is one that optimizes the total happiness of those involved and distributes the pain and reward fairly among opposing parties. In a good compromise, every side gives and takes. Good compromises happen when all parties respect their opponents as deserving human beings. Good compromises happen when people are able see that they share good values with their opponents, even though they may weigh those values differently. Good compromises happen when people are humble and willing to consider the possibility that better alternatives exist and that they could be wrong.
Good governments seek balance so that everyone wins a little and looses a little. The best governments are those that are able to think outside the box to find novel solutions where everyone looses less and wins more of what's most important to them.
Bad governments (like bad marriages and friendships) are those whose compromises are always imbalanced. Where the rewards consistently favor one party and the other party consistently bares more of the pain. Strong ideals actually lead to bad governing because they embody pride and consider compromise inherently evil.
The political idealist believes they know the perfect way. If you disagree, you are an enemy of perfection. Political idealists can only see opponents as enemies to be defeated and conflicts as battles to be won. Because the idealist knows the perfect way, any deviation from that is a concession to evil. As Ayn Rand put it
quote:In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube."
To an idealist, conflict is always about good vs. evil so compromise is always a concession to evil. Compromise is always bad. The idealist feels a moral obligation to fight compromise at any price. The opponents of their ideal, are fighting against what's morally right. They are not respected persons whose views and needs deserve consideration, they are enemies and agents of evil, who deserve to loose in every fight.
And that attitude is the exact opposite of what leads to good government. It doesn't matter what the ideal is, that kind of intransigent devotion to any political ideal leads to bad government, period. Any politician with that attitude is not fit to govern because they oppose the very essence of governing which is seeking compromise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eric Cantor recently said in an interview something to the effect that his side would never compromise. The interviewer asked if he was ready to compromise with Obama and he hedged by saying he was ready to cooperate, but not compromise. When asked about the difference, he got a little wishy-washy and said something about the evils of compromising your principles, but what actually comprises "cooperate" was left rather vague. Looks like they're still being ensnared in the web of their own rhetoric from the past couple years, where compromise is still a bad word on their side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's just so strange, from a party that purports to respect and even revere the Founding Fathers. I mean for pity's sake, 50m in a junior high school class when they go over the Constitution will tell you that, like it or not, they were all about compromise, bitterly disputed compromise but compromise nonetheless.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Did the 500 billion$ budget cuts to the US military go through?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The cuts aren't schedule to take effect for another year, so Congress still has plenty of time to fiddle with them.
But from Obama's speech the other day, it certainly sounds as if they're planning for them to stick.
Sadly, $500 billion is just a drop in the bucket. It won't decrease overall military spending, it'll just slow its growth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Meanwhile our military will have all the usual stagnation since we can't afford this anymore, and then when some seriously large country becomes belligerent we'll spend twice as much rebuilding what we used to have.
Then we will of course castigate the president in charge because he doesn't have a crystal ball. I was just thinking. What is the longest stretch of time the US has ever gone without being in a state of armed conflict with somebody? I'm not sticking to war being declared, that's a girlfriend we're just too ashamed of admitting we still visit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Magna Carta Controversy of the Day: State lawmakers in New Hampshire are considering a bill that would require all proposed legislation to have a basis in one of the most important declarations of rights in history.
No, not the U.S. Constitution. The Magna Carta.
Under House Bill 1580, set to be introduced by House Republicans Bob Kingsbury, Tim Twombly and Lucien Vita, all new legislation would have to quote the 800-year old document that outlines feudal barons’ demands of King John of England.
The lawmakers say their intention is to honor the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, but they also believe it’s “a document that still functions.”
“This is a little bit older than the Constitution, but the same thought is there,” said Vita.
The “functioning” document includes such totally-not-racist laws as “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age.”
The state Democratic Party also supports the bill. Sort of.
“I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists,” said Ray Buckley, spokesman for the Democrats. “Saves us the trouble.”
Fortunately, House Bill 1580 doesn’t include any actual penalties for failing to cite the Magna Carta, so even if it passes, New Hampshire’s legal system won’t necessarily be sent back to the 13th century.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Meanwhile our military will have all the usual stagnation since we can't afford this anymore, and then when some seriously large country becomes belligerent we'll spend twice as much rebuilding what we used to have.
Then we will of course castigate the president in charge because he doesn't have a crystal ball. I was just thinking. What is the longest stretch of time the US has ever gone without being in a state of armed conflict with somebody? I'm not sticking to war being declared, that's a girlfriend we're just too ashamed of admitting we still visit.
Decreasing manpower in exchange for keeping some vital systems is a smart play, as is axing weapons systems we really don't need. We have to think realistically about what the next threat is going to be. Air power and the Navy are good enough to keep everyone at bay, and we aren't seriously lacking for tracked vehicles considering it's been 60 years since there has been a major tank on tank battle fought between the United States and another major power. So what are we really worried about? Better to draw down to a realistic level of force and save the money now. If we need it in a decade, we can ramp up training fast enough if it's soldiers we need, and we can dig tanks out of storage, but why spend more money than we spent to fight the Cold War without an obvious enemy to fight? It makes zero sense.
You also have to ask yourself, how many of the fights we've been involved in in the last half century were necessary and how many were manufactured? If we stop getting ourselves into unproductive and unnecessary conflicts, we won't need nearly as much strength has administrations have carped about in the last decade.
You asked when what was the biggest stretch of time we weren't actively engaged in a war, and that's a big question. Korea, and then Vietnam, but what do you consider the beginning date for Vietnam? And do you count the Cold War as a whole? We were never in a shooting war with the USSR, but we kept ourselves in such a state of readiness that we might as well have been for all the money it cost us. End of Vietnam to Gulf War I is probably your answer though.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok, must vent frustration, I STRONGLY DISLIKE RICK SANTORUM! I think he may have replaced Newt as my least favorite candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Ok, must vent frustration, I STRONGLY DISLIKE RICK SANTORUM! I think he may have replaced Newt as my least favorite candidate.
oh oh oh oh oh oh
that's my cue
quote:Santorum also had a tense moment when a student asked him about health care and the Christian responsibility of caring for the poor.
The student said he didn’t “think God appreciates the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of healthcare every year,” citing a 2009 study out of Harvard University.
“Dying?” Santorum answered before going back and forth about the validity of the study.
“The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. There’s — I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance,” Santorum said to a crowd of 100.
“People die in America because people die in America. And people make poor decisions with respect to their health and their healthcare. And they don’t go to the emergency room or they don’t go to the doctor when they need to,” he said. “And it’s not the fault of the government for not providing some sort of universal benefit.
I just got network TV back, so this was the first debate I was actually able to watch. I don't know how you guys have been able to do it. After about 30 minutes I had to change the channel, and it's a good thing I had not yet eaten dinner or I may well have vomited.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I STRONGLY DISLIKE RICK SANTORUM! I think he may have replaced Newt as my least favorite candidate.
Must disagree. Newt just sounds bitter, Santorum is entertaining.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I just got network TV back, so this was the first debate I was actually able to watch. I don't know how you guys have been able to do it. After about 30 minutes I had to change the channel, and it's a good thing I had not yet eaten dinner or I may well have vomited.
You assume people watched these things all the way through. I saw highlights and breakdowns. I would never subject myself to the full spectacle.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:such totally-not-racist laws as “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age.”
Technically, that may not have been all that racist. At the time, Christians were forbidden from lending with interest, so the only lenders who did lend with interest were Jews. (Of course, the main reason they went into money-lending was because they were forbidden from owning real property. That part is the racist bit, really.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Following Rick Santorum’s sudden and unanticipated rise to prominence during the Iowa caucuses, there has been a rush to review the earlier and more obscure phase of his presidential campaign to see what newsworthy tidbits might have been overlooked when the spotlights were all shining on Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
One of Santorum’s gems in the rough was initially uncovered back in November by the ThinkProgress blogger Eli Clifton and Philip Weiss, and returned to this week by a blogger at The Jewish Week . Santorum said, among other things, “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians.”
It was a reminder that two weeks before Newt Gingrich claimed that Palestinians are an invented people, Santorum had also denied their existence.
But whereas Gingrich’s vilification of the Palestinians was merely a nasty example of crude cynicism, Santorum’s seemed both more sincere and more intimately tied up with his ignorance not only of the question of Palestine but—more alarmingly perhaps—of American history as well.
In an informal discussion with a young man, which was aired on CNN, Santorum also said that Israel was the victim of an “aggressive attack on the part of Jordan and other countries,” that it had gained the West Bank in war—which is to say, fair and square. He said it is no more realistic to expect Israel to give back the West Bank than it is to expect the US to give “Texas and Mexico back,” since they too were gained through war.
That’s not a typo, not a verbal slip. Santorum refers to Mexico as part of the United States three separate times in the two-minute interview.
In fact, Santorum’s mangling of Palestinian history is the least interesting thing about his statement. It was so baldly false that it raised eyebrows even at the New York Times and the Washington Post. But it is still worth quoting in full in order to reveal what this vertiginous implosion of history, logic, syntax and grammar—a kind of Santorumian sublime—might tell us about what goes on inside the head of this man who would be president ...
To be fair maybe he meant New Mexico?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: To be fair maybe he meant New Mexico?
I think this has to be what he meant. Or the parts of Mexico we ceded from them in the Mexican-American war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So Texas, all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and a few other places? The Mexican Cession was HUGE. It actually would have been dramatically bigger, but several senators negotiated at the last minute to shrink the size of our acquisition because of the free soil issue. Same thing with the Gadsden Purchase.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So Texas, all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and a few other places? The Mexican Cession was HUGE. It actually would have been dramatically bigger, but several senators negotiated at the last minute to shrink the size of our acquisition because of the free soil issue. Same thing with the Gadsden Purchase.
Texas wasn't part of the Mexican Cession, we stole it in the "Texas Annexation" in 1845, along with Oklahoma, most of Colorado and New Mexico and a tad of Wyoming. The Mexican Cession included California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, another corner of Wyoming and the remainder of Colorado and New Mexico.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, the border between Texas and Mexico wasn't officially decided, despite Texan claims, until after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so you could semantically claim it was part of the Mexican Cession in some ways, but I see your point, that was a misspeaking on my part. A lot of the territory you're referring to, though, like New Mexico, might have been claimed by Texas, but that claim wasn't recognized by Mexico, and it wasn't decided until after the war. And for that matter, when Congress was discussing the Mexican Cession in session, New Mexico and Colorado were a part of those discussion, so they certainly thought it was part of it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On Primary news:
Romney has been declared the winner of the New Hampshire primary...big surprise!
An interesting note - New Hampshire was penalized by the GOP for holding their primary before their assigned date. Interesting since that didn't happen four years ago when the calendar got moved up. Only Michigan and Florida got penalized.
The race now will be for second and third, and it looks like that will be Paul and Huntsman. I wonder if Perry's dismal showing here will mean he finally drops out, or if they all put their chips on South Carolina.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Perry will hold on until South Carolina, the South is a different dynamic. Though I wonder what advanced polls are there. *dig* *dig* *dig*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I fail to understand the political commentary from people like David Gergen at CNN who say that South Carolina is make or break, and that if Romney wins there, he wins the whole thing. Talk about being trapped by their own media-created spin and rhetoric. How is it possible that Romney can claim any sort of a "win" from winning three states? One by the barest of margins, and two of which are absolutely tiny in their number of delegates. He's won but he still has more than a thousand delegates to get to actually win? Preposterous.
So long as the anti-Romney vote is split, it stands to reason that he's in a good position to win, but both Perry and Gingrich are making noises about dropping out if they don't win in South Carolina. That turns it into a four man race between Santorum, Paul, Huntsman (who is also likely to drop out with a weak finish) and Romney. I have to imagine at that point that the conservative anti-Romney vote rallies around Santorum, and then it's a real horse race.
The logic used by political pundits is stunning, and at the moment, they seem to be Romney's biggest asset because they're framing his victory for him before it's even close to being in the bag.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They're trying to keep things exciting and act profoundly insightful for a camera for something like four hours a day. I couldn't do it. I would reach a critical timestretch threshold where I would say "This is the best of our estimations, and the rest of it is — and bear with me on this one — something we have to wait and see about. Well, gee. Let's go talk about more important things, like SOPA. What? I'm already fired for mentioning that? Okay, back to manual labor I guess."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm baffled that people who are too conservative for Romney are not radical enough for Ron Paul. I mean, sure there's not not Romney element, but there's equally a not Paul element. I dunno, maybe they're like me, they don't want a President who wants to cut bait on Israel even if he's unlikely to be able to do so. I suspect that's probably a big deal for a lot of evangelicals.
The thing is, everyone thinks they are conservative. Everyone thinks they know what Reagan II would look like, but none of us agree on what Reagan would do with the current world scene. This is assuming that a conservative is someone who wishes for a Reagan II.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The element which is 'too conservative for Romney' are not as radical as ron paul, because ron paul is both
1. radical in ways that that terrify even them, and 2. 'radical' in ways they greatly disapprove of
To (1), for instance, Ron Paul is doggedly convinced that the United States needs to switch to the gold standard. This is a joke on the internet, but it is terrifying in real life.
To (2), for instance, Ron Paul opposes our foreign wars, which is direly incompatible with the the attitude that has pervaded the conservative core since 9/11 came about to fulfill the wishes of neocons everywhere. There's no kinder way to term it other than 'cowboy warlust.' Most of them despise Ron Paul because he adamantly disagrees with the wars and wants to turn the united states wholeheartedly isolationist.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
And now that Obama is the commander in chief a lot of conservatives say war is bad again. Though I suppose I could get a better vibe if I were willing to look around at conservative pundits. I guess I'm really not that curious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Neither Romney or Paul are as rabid about abortion and SSM as many conservatives would like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've spoken to bankers who explain why returning to the gold standard while extremely painful will ultimately be a better thing than the current system.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did you ask them to define "painful"?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I though Paul was deeply pro life. Though I guess his medical background may have exposed him to medically necessary instances.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did you ask them to define "painful"?
Our currency would crash because we've printed far more currency than we have gold reserves. But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
I don't know how correct the idea is, IANAB.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am talking about the consequences of having our currency crash. How many people will lose jobs, lose homes, lose savings, go hungry before the recovery? What kind of pain are we talking about and for whom? (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess Paul is not for a federal intervention to force us to a Gold standard. He just says a lot of our problems come from departing from it. He apparently wants to remove tax encumberances from trade in gold and he thinks the invisible hands will figure something out.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
Because obviously, since he's a banker, he's deeply selfish and greedy and would never advocate anything that might cause him any discomfort, only discomfort to other, lesser people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am talking about the consequences of having our currency crash. How many people will lose jobs, lose homes, lose savings, go hungry before the recovery? What kind of pain are we talking about and for whom? (I am assuming not much for the banker.)
This crash would almost certainly hurt the banking industry, we would expect much smaller banks than currently exist today, that means fewer employees. Bankers thrive on certainty, and holding onto the current system for many of them is a much safer bet than something radical like the gold standard. My own father (an investment banker) believes we should return to the gold standard, and he definitely espouses it as a "better to cut off a limb than to lose the body" with all the sober reality that entails.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am assuming that it wouldn't be as much "pain" for the banker because I am assuming that the banker is well off. Are you disputing that an economic crash is more likely to cause poor and almost poor people to lose houses, jobs, savings, and go hungry than to cause wealthy people to do the same?
ETA: It is easier to contemplate cutting off a limb when you are not living on that limb.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
Why would we want this?
Isn't Paul's preference for the gold standard due to the fact that a return to the gold standard would remove a fairly significant tool by which government can influence markets?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Considering the impact such a dramatic change to our currency would have on the banking industry, I'm not as confident that he would come out without suffering a great deal of financial pain.
Also, there are a lot of bankers in the US, and they're not all well off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am assuming that it wouldn't be as much "pain" for the banker because I am assuming that the banker is well off. Are you disputing that an economic crash is more likely to cause poor and almost poor people to lose houses, jobs, savings, and go hungry than to cause wealthy people to do the same?
ETA: It is easier to contemplate cutting off a limb when you are not living on that limb.
Of course that's something to consider. But we also allow a doctor to advise on whether or not we require treatment regardless of that treatments effect on their personal income.
Are their doctors who prescribe things because they are getting paid to do so, yes. But there are also doctors who believe in what they are doing. Same goes for bankers.
---------
NM: Returning to the gold standard to say my father isn't the only thing that needs to be done. He very much believes that NAFTA and most favored trade status with China has traded our jobs and job security in exchange for cheaper products. We've gone too far in that direction and need to back pedal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not saying that your banker doesn't believe he is right. I am not even saying that he isn't right. I am saying that the "pain" needs to be well and thoroughly understood and plans made to mitigate that "pain" before we blithely decide to crash our currency. We need to figure out how we are going to deal with the actual men, women, children, elderly who are severely feeling that "pain".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
JaredPolis Not only played League of Legends and posts there but is also fighting SOPA and PIPA. He also posts in a very goony fashion.
quote: u would only use a Justin Beiber avatar anyways
I want this guy to be a Rep. there forever.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
And now that Obama is the commander in chief a lot of conservatives say war is bad again. Though I suppose I could get a better vibe if I were willing to look around at conservative pundits. I guess I'm really not that curious.
Conservatives had a very difficult time coming up with a language plan for how they felt about war during Obama's foray into Libya.
They're for it, then they're against it. They think it's a good idea, but Obama is doing it wrong. They like that he's saving money, but doesn't like that he's allowing other nations to pick up so much of the slack. They like that he wants to get rid of Ghadaffi, but feels he isn't going far enough, but they're pre-pouncing on him for going too far!
Anyone who was watching could see that they were objecting just for the sake of objecting. Hell, half of them would say something one day, and then Obama would agree with it, and they'd immediately be on the other side the next day. They didn't really have a doctrine for Obama's use of force other than "we don't like anything he does because he's doing it."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I never had that problem, but apparently I'm not a conservative anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I should have specified. Professional Conservatives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did you ask them to define "painful"?
Our currency would crash because we've printed far more currency than we have gold reserves. But ultimately currency dollar for dollar would be worth much more once it recovered.
I don't know how correct the idea is, IANAB.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the way the gold standard works. The US couldn't conceivably have gold reserves equal to all the currency needed in circulation without making the price of gold so exorbitantly high, relative to other commodities, that it could never be used for anything. There simply isn't enough gold on the planet for that.
Under the gold standard, a country sets a fixed exchange rate between an once of gold and their currency. By doing so, they agree to sell and buy gold at that rate (either to anyone or only to foreign governments, it's not clear which Paul is proposing). If the market price is higher than the exchange rate, people will want to exchange their dollars for gold. To prevent depletion of the reserves, the government then has to buy gold at the market price and sell it at a loss. If the market price is lower than the set point, then people will want to sell gold to the government in exchange for dollars. Either way, it costs the government money, which means either raising taxes or issuing bonds. If the bonds are at a high enough interest rate, investors will prefer them over gold. So effectively, the government has to set interest rates on bonds at the level that will put the dollar at the agreed set point.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that because gold and government bonds aren't the only two possible ways to use dollars. That means trade, the stock market, banks and every sector of the economy is involved. When the US buys something from China in US dollars, the Chinese either have to use those dollars to buy goods from the US, trade them to someone else who wants to buy goods from the US, or invest in something that is sold in dollars. If we have a trade balance, there is no problem. If the US stock market is doing well, then investors are happy to have US dollars to invest. Problems arise when the economy is doing poorly and that's when investors tend to want to buy gold. If you look at the market price of gold, it always rises during a recession when other investments become higher risk.
That means that under the gold standard, whenever the economy tanks the government will have to raise interest rates to prevent a run on gold. It severely limits how government can respond to an economic crisis. (I guess they could tax all sales of gold to balance the books, but that would completely negate having the gold standard).
[ January 12, 2012, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Nature's first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf's a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay.
--Robert Frost
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Gold! Gold! Gold! Gold! Bright and yellow, hard and cold Molten, graven, hammered and rolled, Heavy to get and light to hold, Hoarded, bartered, bought and sold, Stolen, borrowed, squandered, doled, Spurned by young, but hung by old To the verge of a church yard mold; Price of many a crime untold. Gold! Gold! Gold! Gold! Good or bad a thousand fold! How widely it agencies vary, To save - to ruin - to curse - to bless - As even its minted coins express : Now stamped with the image of Queen Bess, And now of a bloody Mary.
--- Thomas Hood
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
---William Jennings Brian
I'll get to your post in a bit Rabbit.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
I'm sure the Central Bank of Moria would approve.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm sure there is tons of scholarship being compiled regarding this election, what with Citizens United in full force.
I hope this leads to reform, but somehow I doubt it, or at least not before a whole lot of damage happens first.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know if the gold standard is as scary to the average conservative as you think. I find it ludicrous, but most guys I've talked to argue that in principle it's not a bad idea.
There's a little cult of faith surrounding the idea, as implacable and stubbornly locked down as when college marxists fiercely believe that society should run on a centralized communistic needs-based barter system. Which, presumably, won't impede Ipod production or prevent their parents from paying for their 90% liberal arts electives course load, car, and student housing close to campus.
And, while not as wholly ridiculous as Student Worker dreams of a communitarian barter economy future to free us from the hegemony of evil capitalism, their vision of a gold-backed free market american standard is as reality-challenged and as likely to even be attempted.
I forget who here said it, but it's really true: It's extremely handy to know when someone is for the gold standard, because it's a very potent and direct way to know that they can be safely disregarded in economic matters.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Well, I guess we can now peg Gingrich as a flip flopper, after he swore he wouldn't do negative campaign ads. Or is it not negative if the ad consists of quotes by the person?
Though I don't know, I find some of those things quite endearing. The dog on top of the car, will that hurt him in the south?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
pooka: My favorite line was Milibank's "Having fully recovered from his pledge last month to run a “relentlessly positive” campaign, he arrived in South Carolina on Wednesday with renewed defiance of those Republicans who have called on him to soften his attacks on Romney." (emphasis mine)
Great verb for it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I forget who here said it, but it's really true: It's extremely handy to know when someone is for the gold standard, because it's a very potent and direct way to know that they can be safely disregarded in economic matters.
Wasn't it you?
Sort of accurate, though.
[ January 12, 2012, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One wonders what that poll would look like if it was a two man race.
My Poll is longer than your poll?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Now I want to see video footage of a Balrog or a cave of Trolls against, say, a Seal team.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: All that is gold does not glitter
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king.
- JRR Tolkien.
I would like to be the first to announce my support for moving US currency to the Mithril Standard.
Now I want to see video footage of a Balrog or a cave of Trolls against, say, a Seal team.
How much outfitting and support do the Seals get?
Also, since we're not spelling it SEAL, are we talking about a seal team? Wait, no, because we capitalized the first letter. It's a proper noun, then. So, a team of Seals? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
All three together if it's vs a Balrog, any two against trolls.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm still betting on the Balrog, unless the SEAL team is led by Lieutenant Glorfindel. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah modern weapons wouldn't even work on Smaug according to Tolkien himself, (small arms anyways) though I imagine it would depend on whether we're going by his Mythologicalism or we're going by Nasuverse rules (which explicitly details the interactions of magic and science).
Under Nasuverse rules, science can beat magic and gods but under specific circumstances and requiring the logical amount of firepower. So this would be consistent a bit with Tolkien, who only specified machine guns as being ineffective against smaug and hasn't afaik discussed heavier armament.
So I would suspect Smaug and likely a Balrog to shrug of even light anti tank weapons such as recoiless rifles and shape charges. But a full blown cruise missile and a direct hit from a sabot anti tank depleted uranium round I believe should be effective though likely not a one hit kill. Denying this would be treading upon the well known "No Limits Fallacy".
For example Mage Armor/Stoneskin I would rule would work against small arms but be ineffective against precision heavy explosive weaponry like light AT and shape charges.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We could of course nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're assuming Eru Iluvatar would allow you to nuke anything. Or for that matter Earendil, who is up there right now sailing the heavens in a ship, ready to pick your nuke off at a moment's notice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Considering all the world-wrecking and remaking Eru's kiddies did back in the day, would a nuke or MOAB be so objectionable to off a Balrog? Especially when you consider even nuclear winters end, whereas Balrogs do not. Possibly not even when killed.
Buncha Balrog apologists up in here!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fair point.
One thing the Valar really could have used was a decent point defense system.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Barring that Aule coulda cooked up some really strong bug spray, if his wife woulda let him. Would've saved quite a lot of trouble!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert is gonna run for President in South Coralina I think, or maybe in the primary? This could be awesome.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I forget who here said it, but it's really true: It's extremely handy to know when someone is for the gold standard, because it's a very potent and direct way to know that they can be safely disregarded in economic matters.
Wasn't it you?
My first version of this was 'it's great when someone likes ann coulter, they are basically wearing a giant neon sign that says "DISREGARD ENTIRELY" which is really helpful because it saves time'
statement moves along with time, gets to include new neon disregard me signs like michelle malkin, glenn beck, sarah palin, michelle bachmann, tom tancredo (lol), donald trump, g. gordon liddy, ...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was me, actually.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This must be why Republicans like Santorum think government can't do anything right. Because they already know that while they were in government, they were horribly mismanaging money.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Apologise if this is a repost. I did look back but I'm not sure exactly what date this is from.
So how do people feel about French speakers?. You realise this campaign is doing no favours to the global image of the Dis-United States of America.
quote:Quelle horreur! Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has been skewered in a new political attack ad - for speaking French.
...
Some commentators have highlighted a possible irony in that Mr Gingrich, a former House Speaker, has a doctorate in European history. His 1971 dissertation, Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960, contains a number of sources in French in its bibliography.
Never ending source of comedy, this campaign.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Also, this week the Daily Show dug up a clip of Gingrich reading a statement of apology in rather wobbly Spanish (apology because he had apparently called Spanish 'The language of the ghetto'), so perhaps Romney could do something with that in his next video.
Gingrich seems to have issues with other people speaking languages that he also speaks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The idea that being able to speak a foreign language is an unamerican character flaw to the extent it can be directly assailed is pretty strikingly par for the course for the mentality of american conservatives these days. See: oh my god, huntsman can SPEAK CHINESE *approval plummets*
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The idea that being able to speak a foreign language is an unamerican character flaw to the extent it can be directly assailed is pretty strikingly par for the course for the mentality of american conservatives these days. See: oh my god, huntsman can SPEAK CHINESE *approval plummets*
I don't know any conservatives who consider speaking a foreign language an unamericana character flaw. I'd be interested in knowing what, besides the comments of Gingrich, cause you to believe this is common among the mentality of current conservatism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't know any conservatives who consider speaking a foreign language an unamericana character flaw.
*snort* Yeah, you do. What you don't know are any conservatives who would say if asked, "I think speaking more than one language-English-is a strike against someone as a political candidate." Well of course they're not going to say that.
But tell me, just tell me, capax, that you don't for example know conservatives who would disapprove of, say, speaking Spanish to another Spanish speaking person in front of a monolingual American. Tell me you don't know any conservatives who disapprove of the emphasis Spanish language has in many American schools. Tell me you don't know any conservatives who would be even a little bit put off if a conservative political candidate were to give a campaign speech in French.
Of course you do. We all do. And before you get all outraged at that paragraph, please bear in mind it's not unlike how all of us know a liberal or two who would be maybe uncomfortable if they went into a restaurant that was decorated in explicitly patriotic memorabilia, or tend to be a little unsettled when religious rhetoric finds its way into a conversation, so on and so forth.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I'd be interested in knowing what, besides the comments of Gingrich, cause you to believe this is common among the mentality of current conservatism.
Candidates and conservative organizations in the republican primary have strategically pegged the speaking of a foreign language as a targetable weakness of both Romney and Huntsman.
None of which apparently you know about, of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know santorum's done and all but yippee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is, it's not 'He's bilingual!' that is, among conservatives-I'll be more specific and say primary-voting evangelical and/or social conservatives-a strike against a candidate.
The thing that's a strike is going to be what being multi-lingual conjures up. Less likely to be isolationist, more likely to be well educates, more likely to be associated with diplomacy, less likely to support English as the national language, less likely to be antagonistic towards candidates with higher education, etc etc etc.
It was never as plain as 'He speaks furrin'!' It was always, 'He's the kinda guy who speaks furrin'!'
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well.
On one hand, yes, the liability for Huntsman isn't purely that he can speak Chinese. It's also the idea that he may have "gone native", that he may have developed contacts that may overly influence him, etc.
On the other hand, if you look at the likely ways that someone could go about attaining the ability to speak Chinese, you quickly see that pretty much all of them would be strikes among a Republican demographic. Lived overseas for a lengthy period of time? Strike. Learned it in college? Strike. Has Chinese ancestry? Double-strike.
So practically, I don't think that there's a huge difference.
(Of course it could be fairly noted that speaking Chinese/being Chinese is probably the worst-case short of speaking Arabic/being an Arab)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
On one hand, yes, the liability for Huntsman isn't purely that he can speak Chinese. It's also the idea that he may have "gone native", that he may have developed contacts that may overly influence him, etc.
On the other hand, if you look at the likely ways that someone could go about attaining the ability to speak Chinese, you quickly see that pretty much all of them would be strikes among a Republican demographic. Lived overseas for a lengthy period of time? Strike. Learned it in college? Strike. Has Chinese ancestry? Double-strike.
So practically, I don't think that there's a huge difference.
(Of course it could be fairly noted that speaking Chinese/being Chinese is probably the worst-case short of speaking Arabic/being an Arab)
You forgot the fourth option.
4: He's a certified genius, and picked up Chinese on his own time. Elitist! Strike!
[ January 14, 2012, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. Maybe he could say that Jesus taught him to speak foreign.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On one hand, yes, the liability for Huntsman isn't purely that he can speak Chinese. It's also the idea that he may have "gone native", that he may have developed contacts that may overly influence him, etc.
I don't agree that it's that... rational.
I think you struck on the crux of the issue later on in your own post:
quote: (Of course it could be fairly noted that speaking Chinese/being Chinese is probably the worst-case short of speaking Arabic/being an Arab)
Racism.
You speak like them, you *are* like them. You are not like *us*.
In the way that Spanish is a "dirty" language, of dirty people, and French is an elitist language, of socialists. and Russian is a communist/gangster language of communists and gangsters, Chinese is the language of godless hordes of human swine. That's the attitude. The other stuff is rationalization of the attitude that makes it look like ignorance, rather than more sinister prejudices.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hm. Maybe he could say that Jesus taught him to speak foreign.
Jesus spoke English. It's all right there in the Bible. Who do you think wrote the bible? Google? Hah.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really wouldn't go so far as that, Orincoro. I think the kinds of things you're describing form a part-a big part-of the historical (sometimes quite recent) roots of discomfort with 'elitist' bilinguals, with discomfort towards affinity for foreign cultures and languages, but I just don't think it's a thought many people, even in the far right, have anymore.
It's just been too unacceptable publicly to think that way for too long. That kind of thinking has had to change. Now it's 'She's got foreign affairs experience because I could see Russia, but he's too friendly with China' sort of thing. It's that 'Chinese' as a language isn't badnecessarily...but shouldn't he have been learning about Jesus, apple pie, and cutting taxes instead?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Of course it could be fairly noted that speaking Chinese/being Chinese is probably the worst-case short of speaking Arabic/being an Arab
Trilingual Chinese-Arab, from Kenyang, North Saudi Korenyastan
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I was going to write a description, but it's pretty much been done for me in the link.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I really wouldn't go so far as that, Orincoro. I think the kinds of things you're describing form a part-a big part-of the historical (sometimes quite recent) roots of discomfort with 'elitist' bilinguals, with discomfort towards affinity for foreign cultures and languages, but I just don't think it's a thought many people, even in the far right, have anymore.
It's just been too unacceptable publicly to think that way for too long. That kind of thinking has had to change. Now it's 'She's got foreign affairs experience because I could see Russia, but he's too friendly with China' sort of thing. It's that 'Chinese' as a language isn't badnecessarily...but shouldn't he have been learning about Jesus, apple pie, and cutting taxes instead?
You're not wrong on the elitism angle, but I think you are downplaying the role of xenophobia, and more importantly fear of non racial-normative behavior. That is, the majority group finds showing interest in or seeking knowledge about foreign cultures to be distasteful, primarily because such knowledge is beneath a majority member. I could only share anecdotal evidence of this kind of thing- I wouldn't know how to prove it, it's just a private theory.
But one that fits with a lot of the available facts. I think the issue of racism in general is deeply tied up with the conservative idea of "elitism," or "intellectualism." Insofar as intellectuals value knowledge less discriminately than, say, religious conservatives -whose religious ideas involve concepts of forbidden or dangerous knowledge corrupting innocence- some conservatives view them as race and or cultural traitors or double-dealers. Knowledge of a foreign language indicates sympathy with foreign cultures, and that sympathy is inextricably entangled with race.
So while yes, I think the public face of this can be shaped into: "he should have been learning about Jesus," the private reality, often, is based in xenophobia. If you associate with prostitutes, jews, or the chinese, there is clearly something low in your character. That's an old attitude, and not one that I think has really gone away. It's based on the kind of fallacious reasoning that continually crops up among ignorant people. That is to say, as I have said many times, racism is not peculiar to our own history; it is fundamentally a part of the human experience, and it doesn't go away.
quote: It's just been too unacceptable publicly to think that way for too long.
Where did the flap over Herman Cain's "Uzbek....istani... stani stan stan" comment originate? Because, granted I was overseas and maybe I didn't have a good idea of the public opinion at that moment, but I think it rested mainly with liberals. Tell me, why did his supporters not *instantly* drop him over that? Why did it take a sex scandal to end his bid?
And while yes, I realize he did eventually drop out, I would submit that his candidacy largely stalled when conservatives realized that he was not electable (meaning he couldn't draw support from independents), not because they disagreed with him.
[ January 15, 2012, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Huntsman is officially out and has endorsed Romney.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So while yes, I think the public face of this can be shaped into: "he should have been learning about Jesus," the private reality, often, is based in xenophobia. If you associate with prostitutes, jews, or the chinese, there is clearly something low in your character. That's an old attitude, and not one that I think has really gone away. It's based on the kind of fallacious reasoning that continually crops up among ignorant people. That is to say, as I have said many times, racism is not peculiar to our own history; it is fundamentally a part of the human experience, and it doesn't go away.
I wouldn't say it's gone away, either, but it has changed. Not so long ago you really could say, openly, "Race traitor." You could say it and not only not be harmed-it would actually help.
quote:Where did the flap over Herman Cain's "Uzbek....istani... stani stan stan" comment originate? Because, granted I was overseas and maybe I didn't have a good idea of the public opinion at that moment, but I think it rested mainly with liberals. Tell me, why did his supporters not *instantly* drop him over that? Why did it take a sex scandal to end his bid?
And while yes, I realize he did eventually drop out, I would submit that his candidacy largely stalled when conservatives realized that he was not electable (meaning he couldn't draw support from independents), not because they disagreed with him.
Bear in mind a few things. One, the only people actually involved in the race at all, the ones who were actually invested in it, were Republican primary voters. An admittedly small subsection not just of America but of American Republicans period. A very powerful subsection, politically, but we're talking about how commonplace and acceptable given attitudes are. Of that group, a smaller portion still openly supported Cain to win the Republican nomination.
Even taking all of these factors into account, he was widely regarded-for all of his intense but narrow support-as a hype machine with little staying power. Even before the sex scandals really started washing away his sand castle. It was his economics that gained him what support he had, much more than, well, anything else about him, really. Bear in mind also that for someone like Cain, the support he would've started out with to begin with would be much less flexible than usual. Not unlike people who still thing Palin or Bachmann are just rad-takes an earthquake to move some people. But they were never going to be enough on their own.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Watching Daily Show and Colbert pisses me off since I have to wait a day to see it, resulting in the hilarious circumstance where the SuperPAC newsletter I subscribed to tells me of Colbert's progress in his presidency bid before I'm informed via the actual show...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're not wrong on the elitism angle, but I think you are downplaying the role of xenophobia, and more importantly fear of non racial-normative behavior. That is, the majority group finds showing interest in or seeking knowledge about foreign cultures to be distasteful, primarily because such knowledge is beneath a majority member. I could only share anecdotal evidence of this kind of thing- I wouldn't know how to prove it, it's just a private theory.
crosspostin'
quote:When the realtime response measurement system is in place and doing second-by-second measurement of conservatives response to huntsman's speeches and participation in debates, approval shoots through the floor (and disapproval in reverse) when he speaks in chinese or talks about his familiarity with china or the time he spent in china, you get to watch a mathematically quantifiable measurement of sinophobia, and it's great
[ January 18, 2012, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Guess capax don't know any of those conservatives, eh? And strangely I suspect we won't be hearing more from him on this subject.
Anyway, as for me I don't dispute that the disapproval is strong, I just think we as q society kid ourselves about why whereas once we didn't. Once you were a commie lover, or someone who made too nice with the yellow peril, and if you had the nerve to be white and work civil rights alongside blacks, you might just get lynched and then get a sham-jury of other whites.
Now there are codewords that tell people what sort of well they need to draw from. One of them is 'elitist'. Used to be we would skip straight to 'Jew' or 'liberal', though of course the latter is still widely accepted insult currency among many Republicans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So Perry is out now as of earlier today, which means my doomsday scenario is still possible!
Polling has been interesting for the last few days even without Perry's withdrawal. He's been polling around 5% for the last two or so weeks, and most of that support will be broken up around Newt and Santorum, probably. Newt has been surging in SC in the last few days however. Polls had him down almost 20% from some pollsters, and Newt hadn't polled ahead of Romney since his early December surge.
Now, polls in the last two days have him anywhere from down 10 points to up six points (NBC News for the former, Public Policy Polling for the later). I've seen several polls just from yesterday that have Newt up by a razor thin margin, and all these polls have Santorum and Paul in 3rd and 4th in different orders. All of these polls also have Perry in them. So, another debate tonight with Gingrich coming off a great performance on Monday, he's surging in the polls, his competition for the not-Mitt vote is down to only two, and he has another chance to lay into Romney, who has played a spirited game of defense for months.
I think there's still a chance that Gingrich makes some magic happen here. I think whoever comes in 4th (Santorum?) probably drops out here, even though he'll pretend that winning Iowa in hindsight actually means something. The thing of it is, Santorum I think can be convinced he doesn't have a shot, but if Gingrich even comes close, despite what he said before about not going on if he loses South Carolina, he HATES Romney, hates him with a passion. I think if it looks like there is any life at all, he'll stay in it to kill Romney.
A lot of people were saying it would be wrapped up after South Carolina, but unless Romney blows them out of the water, I think this thing keeps going, and if one or two more drop out, the race keeps going for months with back and forth wins.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think there's still a chance that Gingrich makes some magic happen here.
After Cain surviving weeks of that before it finally built up, and Newt surging twice now despite the fact that the business with his wives is really old news, and with him spinning it, perhaps successfully, using his usual anti-liberal media mantra, I'm really not convinced that that will stop him.
It's been a story since Tuesday, and his support is still rising. It was the first question out of the gate at the debate, and he parried it with gusto to a roaring crowd. Republicans can be remarkably successful at avoiding flak for the very things they complain about the most (regarding social issues...Democrats get away with a lot of their own bugaboos as well).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not familiar with your doomsday scenario, Llyrhawn. I'm interested to see if SC loses their Kingmaker thing, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Is anybody else kinda tired of Newt Gingrich attacking the moderator, the media, or saying it's a "gotcha question" whenever he is asked about the sordid details of his past? Part of me wishes one of those news anchors would stand up and blow out his insincere bluster with some righteous indignation.
His infidelity to not one, but two women is absolutely something the nation should be aware of. And he should answer for his behavior, not lambast the media for caring. He's running as a family values candidate, he gives speeches on the subject. He's a hypocrite.
If a candidate was railing about the poor not paying their fair share of taxes, and it was revealed they were purposely cheating on their taxes, that is relevant to the discussion. It's not a gotcha, or a liberal media going on a Republican witch hunt no matter how biased a source is.
[ January 20, 2012, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Honestly, I don't think it was a worthwhile question for King to ask him, for a couple of reasons. 1. Gingrich has been doing, as you note, this for weeks. Whenever he gets a question he doesn't like he sidesteps it and rails against the media, and his target audience eats it up every time! So you had to know he was going to do it again here, especially with a question this explosive. 2. I don't think it was appropriate for a debate setting. I think it's a worthy campaign issue in a party that talks that much about family values, but not in a debate. Obviously the other candidates didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole.
I find his media assaults both annoying and very amusing, because by and large the media backs down every time he puffs up with bluster.
pooka -
Not really a doomsday scenario I guess, but the general idea that Romney isn't a foregone conclusion, and that if the other candidates drop out fast enough, support will coalesce around one of them and he'll be either in for a long fight, or he'll simply lose. Almost everyone in the media has been talking for weeks as if two things were assured 1. Romney will be the nominee, and 2. It will all be over by South Carolina, thereby making 47 out of 50 states totally irrelevant to the nominating process.
I don't think that will happen, and I really, really hope it doesn't as well. If this thing actually gets down to a two man race, then the Republican party might FINALLY have it out once and for all. They're dancing around the issue, but the Party really is in the midst of an ideological civil war.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Every party always is. It's the nature of trying to stake out as much ground as possible without losing the people on the opposite end.
But I think that over the next several states, people are going to have to face the question of whether they'd rather be pandered to or have someone who has some chance of beating Obama in November.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After Cain surviving weeks of that before it finally built up, and Newt surging twice now despite the fact that the business with his wives is really old news, and with him spinning it, perhaps successfully, using his usual anti-liberal media mantra, I'm really not convinced that that will stop him.
Assuming he ever really stood a chance at the presidency, the answer is that it pretty much would have. It's got the right kind of moral stickiness.
I'll just come right out and say it: while I've never agreed with much of any of the politics of the active Republican right, and have often deplored their methods, I have usually been able to regard the voters themselves as honest people, though with quite bad and sometimes dangerous ideas.
But to see Gingrich, the guy who worked hard to make his bones bagging an adulterer (admittedly, Clinton did purjor himself, and that is worse) while his party crowed about morality and family values-for this adulterer 'not a lobbyist' politician to claim his campaign is about redemption, and then be asked questions about his multiple marital infidelities that go straight to the heart of his own integrity...for this politician to not just be applauded, but greeter with thunderous applause because of evil old media...
I won't be forgetting that sometime soon. It's very hard for me to imagine right wing Republican voters as honest people right now. On a related topic, I'd just love to hear more of capax's thoughts about not knowing any conservatives who-blather.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe I'm just vindictive, but I won't vote for Gingrich even if it means voting for Obama.
Plus if Gingrich is nominated, I believe that activates Donald Trump, who I also will not vote for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wouldn't vote for Gingrich if my hair was on fire and he had the only bucket of water for a hundred yards. He is so dishonest and scummy to me that I don't see how anyone who didn't already practice 'lesser of two evil' voting wouldn't for him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: He is so dishonest and scummy to me that I don't see how anyone who didn't already practice 'lesser of two evil' voting wouldn't for him.
I guess you could use this as an example of how that would sort of work
quote: I think Gingrich is the kind of practical politician who can get good things done.
It wasn't Clinton who balanced the budget back in the 1990s. It was Newt Gingrich, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Until Gingrich engineered the impossible by winning Republican control of the Congress for the first time since the 1952 election, Clinton did nothing to balance the budget. Gingrich made a budget-balancer out of him.
Maybe, as president, Gingrich could do it again. The world is heading for a financial disaster so terrible that we can hardly imagine it. Governments made the disaster; but America also created the peace that allowed the world system of free trade to flourish, raising living standards everywhere.
There can be no new revelations about Gingrich. We already know every appalling thing about him, because the Left borked and palined him in the 1990s, and there's nothing left to uncover.
So if you Republicans actually want to get rid of Obama, stop looking at "true conservatives" -- they won't get the votes of independents and swing Democrats like me.
And don't nominate Romney, either -- he's too fragile and, being a Mormon, too easy to tear down and destroy. The Left will be so glad to do it.
I think Gingrich is your best choice, because despite his negatives, there is nobody smarter or more capable or with a better record of good government seeking the office of President right now.
He'll blow Mr. Teleprompter out of the water. And he'll know how to work with Congress after he's elected.
As a Mormon, I'll defend Romney's Mormonness. Mormons are perfectly normal, good people, and we deserve our chance to run for any office and make our normal share of stupid mistakes, just like anybody else.
But, partly because being Mormon makes him so vulnerable, Romney's not the best candidate in 2012. If Gingrich chooses him as his vice presidential nominee, I wouldn't oppose it; but Gingrich should be President.
That's my opinion -- as a Mormon, as a Democrat, and as an American who believes our country has a unique responsibility to choose strong, wise leaders for the free world.
you know, just because I still haven't finished being bowled over by this
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Ron Paul has appeal with independents and some Democrats too. He's a man with ideas that could address our financial problems. He's the one that wants to audit the Fed and end unnecessary foreign wars.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ron Paul has appeal with independents and some Democrats too.
How much appeal have you been coached to think he really has with independents and democrats? What, honestly, do you think Ron Paul's general prospects in the presidential election are? Do you think he would beat Obama if he won the Republican primary?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in other news before i wander out to the cold:
Oh hey, you know how everyone is saying Romney won both Iowa and New Hampshire, the first GOP candidate to win both pretty much ever?
Yeah, that didn't happen. They recounted and Santorum won. But the state didn't even count all their votes, several precincts missed their reporting deadline, and it's not like the caucus results actually determine what delegates Iowa sends.
So basically Iowa is horrible, and doesn't deserve to be the first primary.
Maybe this will shine a spotlight on just how ridiculous Iowa as a first in the nation primary really is. I doubt it. Every four years, especially lately, there's been a major schedule reform pushed by one faction or another, and it never goes anywhere. Maybe if the media picked it up and ran with it, but the media will do now what it always does: ignore Iowa for three and a half more years.
I look forward to the media narrative tonight if Gingrich wins. These people really have no idea what the hell they are doing, yet wield enormous power.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
"As a Democrat, I think governments have set the stage for our financial doom, and Newt G is the man to save us."
Oh, OSC.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, case in point, it's been a long time since I thought OSC was honest about politics. He is quite simply, on many issues, a lying apparently hate-filled demagogue. And before someone complains about that, if I get to be a stupid, America-hating liberal, he gets to be those things.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You know what, though, I would gladly vote for someone as scummy as Gingrich if he/she were a committed, consistent liberal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You couldn't trust they were actually, nor that they'd remain, a committed, consistent liberal if they were. I'm actually surprised at you, Destineer, I wouldn't have thought you'd say that. I couldn't vote for someone who lied straight to my face, knew I knew he was lying, and still insist I like it or else I'm some sort of elitist or socialist or want the terrorists to win or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I wouldn't. The way he conducts himself on a professional level as well as his personal life is a profound indicator of what personal motivations and mentalities drive his political career, and how these mental states would be the framework for how he would compose himself and make decisions once he got his way.
What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You couldn't trust they were actually, nor that they'd remain, a committed, consistent liberal if they were.
The same pretty much goes for every supposed liberal in the Democratic party these days (and certainly for BHO). But also, I don't think that's true. You can trust Newt to remain conservative. So my imagined Democrat version of Newt could be trusted equally well to stay liberal.
Anyway, I just don't see that big a difference between him and Bill Clinton, on the integrity front. The main difference I see is that shit doesn't stick to Clinton as much, because he's so charming, whereas Newt is more of a mutant toad who no one wants to like.
Give me a guy who's a little slimy but can accomplish good things. That's the best we've been able to get in America for a long time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Sam, I think you can speak the truth in hushed tones, here among friends.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You can trust Newt to do things that are outwardly, to appearances, conservative. That is very different from trusting him to remain a committed, consistent conservative.
Not-so-out-there example: taking payoffs if the outcome will appear to be ideological consistency, liberal or conservative. When we're in Newt (and I would say also Clinton) levels of dishonesty, the question becomes not what will they do, but what won't they do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Sam, I think you can speak the truth in hushed tones, here among friends.
Ok. I want to elect Gingrich, because he is the candidate that will sweep me off my feet and leave me two years into his term. For a country with a younger, sexier economy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey! Everyone knows he's gotta have at least five or six publicized marriage-wrecking infidelities before you can make jokes like that, you media hack!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's the stuff. I especially like the part where Gingrich could negotiate strongly with other countries because he had the balls to serve his sick wife(s?) with divorce papers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Strangely, infidelity means something quite differen when a liberal, Democrat, or especially a liberal Democrat, does it! I guess I could take Tea Party popularity without thinking it reflected quite badly on Republicans in general. They were, after all, also antagonistic to Relublicans in many cases. But the better Newt does, the worse my opinion of Republican Americans gets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's .... lol, that's Ablow. That's the guy who flipped out at the J. Crew ads where a mom was painting his boy's toenails, the dude who basically said that watching chaz bono on dancing with the stars puts your kids at risk of The Gay (or I guess The Transgender, something he compared directly to heroin addiction or whatever) and who co-authored that book with glenn beck about the seven wonders that change your life or whatever
It really is remarkably apt. Hi, Ablow. Welcome back to being you again, we missed you, please tell us more about how to use pop psychology to save marriage and society from the scourge of confusing gender messages, possibly with the help of unrepentant serial philanderer presidents
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Ron Paul has appeal with independents and some Democrats too.
How much appeal have you been coached to think he really has with independents and democrats? What, honestly, do you think Ron Paul's general prospects in the presidential election are? Do you think he would beat Obama if he won the Republican primary?
I can speak to this a bit, I wouldn't Paul to win, but then again he strikes me as the only honest politician who wouldn't abuse his powers to get his agenda done. It would be 4 years of nothing happening and the debt ceiling would probably result in a default but it would be awesome to watch.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the one hand, Paul strikes me as honest. On the other, I don't trust fanatics-not just that I don't trust them to do the right thing, I don't trust them not to get downright bat-crap irrational nutty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That wouldn't be awesome to watch, unless you cut out the punchline where the linked western economy, of which you are a part, goes into a double-strength retry of the last economic crash, widening the income gap even more unsustainably, rotting out infrastructure, and making today's kids the hard luck generation of living memory.
That, and not even Paul as president would cause a debt default for the united states.
/edit - though I guess THOR would have an awesome time gloating a lot about how right he was for like, months
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for the poor quality. The video is pretty bad too. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing to remember is that there is little if anything the US does that's good for the world, economically, politically, philosophically, much less militarily. That's what you've got to remember when thinking of whether or not it'd be fun to watch America tumble.
Anyway, THOR has been gloating about his accurate predictions almost forever even when they're really wrong, as far as this forum is concerned. I daresay if he were ever proved right, much less spectacularly right, it'd be forever in a less metaphorical way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate," -Newt Gingrich
For the sake of Newt's third marriage we must not let him become president!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or maybe he'd slack off! Small government at its best, that's what a true conservative would do. Best is least and all that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh I've never felt Newt was lazy. Honestly I'd prefer his being lazy to his being actively engaged in the policy agenda he's laid out.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
Different people are fed up with government excess and bungling: unnecessary wars, high taxes, and excessive intrusive regulation into their personal and business lives. Ron Paul is a real alternative to Obama because Obama has done all of these things that people are fed up with, so he could win against Obama.
As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You can trust Newt to do things that are outwardly, to appearances, conservative. That is very different from trusting him to remain a committed, consistent conservative.
Not-so-out-there example: taking payoffs if the outcome will appear to be ideological consistency, liberal or conservative. When we're in Newt (and I would say also Clinton) levels of dishonesty, the question becomes not what will they do, but what won't they do.
Yeah, well, I loved Clinton, so I don't feel that I can be consistent and still have a problem with Newt's sliminess.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
An insightful grad student from my department posted this on Facebook:
quote:Leave aside Gingrich's obviously ridiculous allegation that this was just CNN "protecting Barack Obama". I think that he's exactly right to condemn the media for taking such an intense and obviously prurient interest in the details of a candidate's sex life.
In comparison to some of the recent responses by politicians who have been found to be doing the wrong things with their genitalia - I'm thinking mostly of Anthony Weiner's contrite apology and bashful plea for forgiveness in response to the national media raiding his personal sexual affairs with a fervor and fascination unmatched in any of their coverage of America's sanction of torture - Gingrich's response was quite refreshing. This is exactly how political officials should respond when the media begins to act as though it is entitled to the salacious details of their sex lives: by shifting the shame. It's not Gingrich, but John King who should feel ashamed for treating the issue of whether or not Gingrich wanted an open marriage or not as though it were relevant to who American citizens should vote for.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
I definitely agree with the former. But for one thing, as you say, a lot of Paul's popularity comes from outside the party, and a lot of primaries are closed to non-registered Republicans.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I couldn't disagree more with what your colleague posted, Destineer. Had we been speaking of, say, Hugh Hefner's presidential bid that would be one thing-he has not ever claimed to be traditionally virtuous, he almost certainly wouldn't be trying for the nomination of the party that lays claim to better morality, and he didn't make a large part of his past fame about bringing down someone else for lying about infidelity.
Newt's infidelity isn't relevant in and of itself. He has made it relevant.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure which (if either) of these two things you're saying:
(A) It's relevant because Republican voters believe in "family values," and therefore they do in fact care whether their candidates are promiscuous.
(B) It's relevant because it makes Newt a hypocrite, since he's claimed (implicitly or explicitly) to have "good family values."
Also, would you say it was wrong of the media to come after Weiner, because he's not a member of the "family values" party?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry, I meant to say 'isn't just relevant because...', you're right to point that out.
Basically my stance is that serial infidelity in a major politician is troubling, and potentially an issue, for a variety of reasons. Integrity might be called into play, but there might be an open marriage, heh. Impulse control might be an issue, or they might just be quite liberated and adult towards sex.
There really aren't very many politicians at this level who publicly have open marriages or who could be called-according to their outward reps-sexually liberal. So there's a problem, to me, when a politician isn't who they say they are.
It becomes even more serious when they specifically and loudly claim to be apple pie and baseball in terms of sexuality, AND they castigate those who aren't, and then it turns out they themselves want, say, an open marriage.
You cannot reasonably claim to trust them if they do that-oh, he'll just lie about sex, because it's nobody's business anyway. You can trust him on the real stuff. Well how do you know that? You trust him because you trust him.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I definitely don't agree about the trust thing. I have several friends who have cheated in relationships or marriages, who I otherwise consider to be completely trustworthy people. Including some who I'd be happy to have as president.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure, you know them and have personal experience with them. You cannot say the same of Newt, or even Clinton. You might be able to say you trust him to lie only in ways that wouldn't upset you, but that's not really the same thing as trusting him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
Different people are fed up with government excess and bungling: unnecessary wars, high taxes, and excessive intrusive regulation into their personal and business lives. Ron Paul is a real alternative to Obama because Obama has done all of these things that people are fed up with, so he could win against Obama.
As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
Do you realize that while a Ron Paul Presidency would be a fascinating thing to watch is an utterly horrible idea that would accelerate the war on the poor and the middle class?
Gold Standard is also a horrible idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I love how many Americans expect First World standards of living, but somehow think we have high taxes. It's just so strange to me.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure, you know them and have personal experience with them. You cannot say the same of Newt, or even Clinton. You might be able to say you trust him to lie only in ways that wouldn't upset you, but that's not really the same thing as trusting him.
But I also think my personal experience with these guys has taught me something. Namely that, except for those who actually suffer from a compulsion, there's no such thing as "a liar," period. There are people who (sometimes) lie about relationships, and those who lie about other things, and there's not that strong a correlation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you saying that, absent other information, you would trust someone you knew to be a serial adulterer who you also knew spent time deploring modern sexual immorality-that you'd trust to be, say, just as honest in for example business as you would trust someone you didn't know to be an outright hypocrite?
I'm not asking if you think there'd be a correlation or something-I'm asking who you would trust or mistrust more. C'mon Destineer, it's actually OK to trust someone less when you catch them in a lie, man! That is, in effect what you're saying-that it isn't rational to mistrust someone more when you know they have lied to you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If I were entering into a business deal with Jerry, a Southern Baptist, and I learned that Jerry had gone behind his wife's back... that wouldn't have any appreciable effect on how much I trusted him to deal fairly with me, no. I might refuse to deal with him out of a sense of moral disgust, but I wouldn't expect him to betray me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For me, dishonesty isn't the primary issue, it's the extraordinary hypocrisy. Gingrich is a man who has been outspoken in condemning other people for sexual behaviors. He preaching family values and marital fidelty, but he doesn't live it. And he told one of his x-wives it didn't matter whether he lived it. While he was leading the effort to impeach Clinton because he was getting blow jobs from a young woman on his staff, Gingrich was having an affair with a young member of his staff. And now, after having lead an effort of appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton's sex life and making that an issue in every paper, he's saying his sex life is his private business and the media should but out?
The problem isn't that he is a liar, it's that he is the worst kind of hypocrite. Gingrich believes he is above the rules. In a society built on the Principal that no one is above the rules, that should be a political issue.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Did he really preach it, though? I remember him being pretty clear back in the day that the offense of Clinton's that mattered to him was the "perjury," not the affair.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
How much is "as much as half of Paul's support?"
Does the fact that what support Paul has is divided so only half of that support is allowed to participate in many of the primaries is a positive? (no, it screws him)
If you take both halves of Paul's support, is it enough to float him in a national election against Barack Obama? (no, he'd go down in a landslide)
You are exactly the sort of person I was talking about earlier in this thread. I explained in detail why polling shows that Paul does not have even remotely enough popular support or primary support to win either the primary, nor the presidency. Yet hardcore libertarians like you all across the country form this very strange social phenomenon of people who are absolutely convinced that not only does he stand a shot at the republican primaries, but that he could or would beat Obama in a national election.
And all of these ideas are false, but well coached.
Paul supporters really, really like to listen to and believe the idea that Paul's ideas have broad national support — and by extension, that their libertarian ideas have large national support. To the extent that they listen to and don't challenge the narratives that let them think that way. But they're wrong.
And you are acting as a pretty straightforward example of that. Did you look and see the numbers you were citing indirectly? You didn't. I'm looking at the PDF now. If you had looked at it too, you would realize that in response to a question about Paul's viability in the election, you were handing me a valid voter survey which, like all of them, forecasts Obama beating Paul in a national election. And you were doing so to try to argue the opposite.
Opinion Research. Public Policy Polling. Susquehanna. SurveyUSA. American Research Group. Rasmussen. All of 'em. They all have Obama well above Paul — I think universally at least twice over the MoE. Paul is the Dynast-King of Fringe Political Non-Contenders. Like a long-lasted conservative version of Kucinich, in that he likes to show up and stump in the national election because it gets him gobs of cash and publicity, but is so brazenly far out into the fanatical netherworld of his own political extreme that he won't actually win the election unless pretty much every other candidate is eaten by raptors.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here's some amusement, sorta courtesy of our host.
quote:Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today congratulated GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich on his victory in the South Carolina primary.
...
Gingrich, Santorum and Romney have each signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, which commits signatories, if elected, to taking specific steps toward preserving the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Rep. Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican presidential candidate not to have signed the pledge, and he is not considered to have any realistic chance of becoming the Republican nominee.
"It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."
That's (more of) the stuff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If I were entering into a business deal with Jerry, a Southern Baptist, and I learned that Jerry had gone behind his wife's back... that wouldn't have any appreciable effect on how much I trusted him to deal fairly with me, no. I might refuse to deal with him out of a sense of moral disgust, but I wouldn't expect him to betray me.
If Jerry the Southern Baptist was in the habit of porking secret mistresses and then, without missing a beat, hopping back up on the bully pulpit to preach about how horrid adultery and infidelity is and using this to destroy his opponents, and talking about himself as a Family Values Man and a great defender of real morals in this country, how can this express dishonesty, hypocrisy, and complete duplicity of character lead you to expect that there's no additional risk of him being artificial and unfaithful in his business dealings? He'll break his promises and fidelity to a person he married, but you don't expect any additional risk whatsoever of this crookedness and infidelity being present for mere business partners?
It's an interesting question to me, not least because I don't know to what degree it's been tested how much that serial infidelity can be reliably comorbid to being a snake elsewhere in life.
But, in the end, I think it's looking at the issue wrong. I don't distrust Gingrich inherently because of his infidelity. I just see his infidelity and his transparent duplicity in preaching morality all as pretty classic and potent demonstrations of the larger moral failings that are certainly not constrained to his bedroom(s). He just acts like a sociopath. Someone with glib, superficial charm and bombastic egocentrism. Someone who has been impulsive and irritable his entire political career, to the extent that even his staff would respond with gallows humor to the fundamental nature of Newt, and to say "He's a sociopath, but he's our sociopath." A person who has waved away or otherwise rationalized all the extremely callous and hurtful things he has done to wives and friends alike. Him being cheating, lying scum in the bedroom is all just a natural and expected extension of that. Ultimately irrelevant given all else we already know about him, but certainly a nice little cherry on top of the case against his trustworthiness. To say nothing about what it would say of what the character of our nation has degenerated that we could ever abide electing him to president — that the morals n' values n' defending marriage crowd would sign on with him cause he would "reach out to congress" or whatever. What morally huckstered rubes. What lost and guileless lambs. It's amazing.
/edit
quote:Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today congratulated GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich on his victory in the South Carolina primary.
... "It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."
hahahahahahahahaha
A storm is coming indeed. Are they doing this to themselves on purpose?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:... the issue of whether or not Gingrich wanted an open marriage ...
I'm kinda disappointed in the reporting actually. Wanting an open (or a same-sex) marriage is one thing.
It's rather a different thing to go have an affair for seven years and then confront your wife with it asking to retroactively legitimize it as an "open marriage" or have a divorce.
As that previous FoxNews article says, it certainly takes an excess of *something* to do that. We just disagree on what that something is.
The whole hypocrisy angle is just another layer on the, well, Double Big Mac of fun.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Technically he didn't break any of those NOM rules. He was in fact only married to one woman at at time, and they apparently don't have any rules about auditioning new wives before making the switch, or about how many times you get to trade them in for an upgraded model.
Only heterosexual couples get to make a mockery of the sacred bonds of marriage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Technically he didn't break any of those NOM rules. He was in fact only married to one woman at at time, and they apparently don't have any rules about auditioning new wives before making the switch, or about how many times you get to trade them in for an upgraded model.
Only heterosexual couples get to make a mockery of the sacred bonds of marriage.
I'm borrowing this. And by borrowing it I mean I will just plagiarize it wholesale.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fix the typo in the second sentence, then carry on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pretty much what Samprimary said, Destineer. Infidelity alone is enough, for me personally, to start thinking, "Hmmm. Trustworthy?" about a person absent other evidence. Infidelity coupled (pun intended) with pronouncements on the value of traditional familial morality pushes towards the, "Alright, this person needs to demonstrate their trustworthiness in other areas before I'll accept it."
Adopt an expedient political attitude if you like-after all, getting stuff done is important to everyone, and I can't fault you for saying that on the balance you might vote for such a politician, if their record reflected useful things for your vote in other ways. But you'll be trusting them in spite of big hypocrisy in one area-in spite of it. Because, again, other things equal, who would you do business with if possible?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I agree that it's hypocritical for him to explicitly align himself with something like NOM. That doesn't fit with the conception I had of Gingrich, actually. I sort of thought it was an open secret that he's not really religious and considers the religious right expedient allies rather than fellow travelers.
quote:Because, again, other things equal, who would you do business with if possible?
Well, again, this muddles the issue a bit by bringing in the question of whether I'd want to deny my business to someone I disapprove of morally, not out of distrust but out of shame or disgust.
Other things being equal, I'd vote for the white knight to avoid putting my stamp of approval on the sleazy guy. But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
That's really my original point: I can see why those on the right are glad to align with Gingrich. They're fools to do so, because he's not electable, but I can understand why they look past the slime.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What's really inexcusable about Gingrich being a horny imp is that I assume he's against abortion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Maybe he's had a vasectomy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Before all of his affairs? In fact, he's had children from different marriages if I'm not mistaken.
It feels like you're dodging the question, Destineer. Neither I nor I think anyone else has been asking questions such as 'did Gingrich/Kennedy/Clinton/Nixon do worthwhile things', or 'does marital infidelity mean a person is written off as untrustworthy', but rather 'does marital infidelity coupled with a public attitude of respect for marital fidelity and family values, as well as criticizing those who aren't, do anything to ding up a person's trustworthiness?'
It's late, so perhaps you've responded to that and I'm forgetting it or I missed it. I apologize if I have. The criticism isn't that there's no reason to align with the sleazy partisan one agrees with, the criticism is that the sleazy partisan one agrees with is, at least a little, less trustworthy.
Example: you've been friends with two twin brothers for decades. You've been friends with both their wives for years, and know all four of them as well as close friends know each other. Both are preachers who thumps the Bible pretty hard from the pulpit, talking among other things about the whore of Babylon and sodomites. In all aspects of their lives, they're known for being honest, fair dealing people.
One brother walks his talk so far as you can tell-he's monogamous, didn't have sex before marriage, and has been faithful and happily married for years. The other brother, while also being known all around for being honest and fair dealing, you happen to know he's been having affairs with men and women for years, before and during his marriage. You have no reason to think he's got an open marriage.
If you had to buy a car or a house from one of these brothers, and the conditions of the property relied on their word, are you really telling me you'd scrutinize both to the same extent?
It's an extreme example, but I think it illustrates what I'm getting at: you don't trust someone quite as much when you know they have lied.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought he only had daughters from his first marriage, and it's been a major point made by Fox News, among others, that they're steadfastly in his corner, despite the fact that he cheated on their mom.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
A faustian bargain. One that a party's political base can quite easily get lured and habituated into accepting. Pay no mind, of course, to what this tends to metamorphose it into, or what the 'sleazy guy on your side' turns 'your side' into over time.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Before all of his affairs? In fact, he's had children from different marriages if I'm not mistaken.
It feels like you're dodging the question, Destineer. Neither I nor I think anyone else has been asking questions such as 'did Gingrich/Kennedy/Clinton/Nixon do worthwhile things', or 'does marital infidelity mean a person is written off as untrustworthy', but rather 'does marital infidelity coupled with a public attitude of respect for marital fidelity and family values, as well as criticizing those who aren't, do anything to ding up a person's trustworthiness?'
It's late, so perhaps you've responded to that and I'm forgetting it or I missed it. I apologize if I have. The criticism isn't that there's no reason to align with the sleazy partisan one agrees with, the criticism is that the sleazy partisan one agrees with is, at least a little, less trustworthy.
Example: you've been friends with two twin brothers for decades. You've been friends with both their wives for years, and know all four of them as well as close friends know each other. Both are preachers who thumps the Bible pretty hard from the pulpit, talking among other things about the whore of Babylon and sodomites. In all aspects of their lives, they're known for being honest, fair dealing people.
One brother walks his talk so far as you can tell-he's monogamous, didn't have sex before marriage, and has been faithful and happily married for years. The other brother, while also being known all around for being honest and fair dealing, you happen to know he's been having affairs with men and women for years, before and during his marriage. You have no reason to think he's got an open marriage.
If you had to buy a car or a house from one of these brothers, and the conditions of the property relied on their word, are you really telling me you'd scrutinize both to the same extent?
It's an extreme example, but I think it illustrates what I'm getting at: you don't trust someone quite as much when you know they have lied.
I agree with you, Rakeesh, but I also see Destineer's point that at the end of the day, when you're picking a politician to support, it makes sense to support someone who you think is reasonably likely to enact policies and changes you like, regardless of whether or not they are a bit of a sleazeball.
All else being equal, of course you should pick the principled guy! And you shouldn't pretend your sleazeball's sleaziness isn't really important (as so many Democrats did with Clinton, and so many primary voters seem willing to do for Newt).
But I don't think someone being a sleazeball in their personal life automatically means they will be a wholly corrupt politician. Especially not so corrupt that they won't really enact any of the stuff they say they will (the stuff that you presumably care about).
(I mean, they probably won't enact that stuff sleazy or not, because they're a politician and getting things done in the federal government is hard and frequently hurts their reelection chances.)
Edit: I noticed Sam posted at the bottom of the previous page, and what he said was worth noticing so here it is again:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
A faustian bargain. One that a party's political base can quite easily get lured and habituated into accepting. Pay no mind, of course, to what this tends to metamorphose it into, or what the 'sleazy guy on your side' turns 'your side' into over time.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
The polling data shows that Ron Paul has one of the best chances of beating Obama since all other candidates polled at or below what Ron Paul did. As of Dec 16-18 among registered voters we have:
Paul 45% Obama 52% Gingrich 40% Obama 56% Romney 45% Obama 52% (No data on Santorum, all others have dropped out)
The differences here aren't hardly a landslide, and Obama's lead isn't "well above" Paul's either. A 7% lead can be closed. Media pundits were calling Mitt Romney a front-runner, etc. just a month ago, and now it is much less certain. Paul could win the whole thing.
In the general election, people can vote for anyone they want, and people can switch parties to vote in the primaries etc. Advantage: Ron Paul. Independents, disgruntled democrats, unhappy fiscal conservatives all together could give Paul a victory. It's still a long ways off to the general election, and this thing is far from over. Paul's ideas don't necessarily need broad national support; they need enough support from people that are motivated to vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently, the point of mentioning the poll you yourself indirectly cited didn't stick. Okay.
Well, hmm. Let's try a different angle. I know that Ron Paul is never going to win the republican primary. But you think he's got a good shot at it, and there's no way I will dissuade you. Looking at Intrade, "Ron Paul to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012" is currently (according to your assertion of the situation) massively undervalued at 2.9%. If I gave you a thousand dollars specifically to invest in Intrade, would you invest any of it in the apparently still likely bonanza of a Ron Paul buy-in at twenty nine cents a share?
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
If it was your money, sure.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
The point is, it is still anyone's race to win, and Ron Paul still has a good chance. Despite some controversy around him, he has at least limited support from several segments of society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron Paul: he has limited support from several segments of society.
I think that's as good a final word on the subject as any, really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron Paul supporters tend to think that Paul is suffering because the mainstream media and candidates ignore him. I think the opposite is more likely.
Ron Paul is at his best when he talks about the problems and at his worst when he talks about solutions. About 50% of what he has to say is clever and insightful, the other 50% is shear lunacy. Almost nothing is in between. Because no one is taking Ron Paul seriously but his supporters, a lot of people are seeing only the clever insightful bits. The minute any one else starts taking him seriously, he'll be torn to bits.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
A faustian bargain. One that a party's political base can quite easily get lured and habituated into accepting. Pay no mind, of course, to what this tends to metamorphose it into, or what the 'sleazy guy on your side' turns 'your side' into over time.
Except that, as far as I can tell, the non-sleazy guys are just as likely to stab their supporters in the back. For example, I think it's fair to say that Obama has turned his back on his campaign platform more than Clinton ever did. He's turned "our side" into the side that assassinates Americans for exercising their free speech rights and cuts deals with Republican extortionists.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Is that what he did?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Looks like Florida stands ready to walk with South Carolinians off the cliff.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *snort* Is that what he did?
Among other things, of course. Are you saying he didn't do those things?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if I'd characterize him as turning his back on campaign platform issues more than Clinton, or any other politician. He's disappointed on several things, but we often forget that he's delivered on a great many of his promises as well. We also forget, sometimes, that presidents are kings, and that foremost, this one is a pragmatist first, and an idealist second.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Looks like Florida stands ready to walk with South Carolinians off the cliff.
I have to imagine Santorum drops out after Florida. He'll come in third place, at best, and that will be that. He keeps saying that he has the strength to compete down the long stretch, but after a narrow win in Iowa, and then getting crushed at no better than third place (in a four man race), especially in conservative South Carolina, he has to know that he's done. The only reason to stay in at that point is to try to siphon votes away from someone else, but I'm not even sure where his 10-15% goes in the event that he drops out.
Also, I find it amazing that political talking heads are now referring to FLORIDA as the "tie-breaker" and the final state to have its say. Most of them are saying what seems obvious, that this is actually going to be a long two-man race now between Gingrich and Romney, but more than a few think whoever wins Florida wins the whole thing. The media are just friggin ridiculous when it comes to pretty much everything, but I have a special place of hate in my heart for them during campaign seasons. It wouldn't be so bad if they were benignly stupid, but their reporting influences events as much as, if not more than, events influence their reporting.
I almost feel like Gingrich for railing against the media, but he's doing it with a wink and a nod, because he LOVES the media. And he loves the media for the exact same reason I hate it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, I believe you dropped a "not" in your short 1:35 post. (Or I really haven't been paying NEARLY enough attention to US politics. )
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ron Paul: he has limited support from several segments of society.
I think that's as good a final word on the subject as any, really.
Best last word on Ron Paul ever.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure if I'd characterize him as turning his back on campaign platform issues more than Clinton, or any other politician. He's disappointed on several things, but we often forget that he's delivered on a great many of his promises as well. We also forget, sometimes, that presidents are kings, and that foremost, this one is a pragmatist first, and an idealist second.
I think this post is missing a "n't."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rivka beat me to it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Looks like Florida stands ready to walk with South Carolinians off the cliff.
I have to imagine Santorum drops out after Florida. He'll come in third place, at best, and that will be that. He keeps saying that he has the strength to compete down the long stretch, but after a narrow win in Iowa, and then getting crushed at no better than third place (in a four man race), especially in conservative South Carolina, he has to know that he's done. The only reason to stay in at that point is to try to siphon votes away from someone else, but I'm not even sure where his 10-15% goes in the event that he drops out.
Also, I find it amazing that political talking heads are now referring to FLORIDA as the "tie-breaker" and the final state to have its say. Most of them are saying what seems obvious, that this is actually going to be a long two-man race now between Gingrich and Romney, but more than a few think whoever wins Florida wins the whole thing. The media are just friggin ridiculous when it comes to pretty much everything, but I have a special place of hate in my heart for them during campaign seasons. It wouldn't be so bad if they were benignly stupid, but their reporting influences events as much as, if not more than, events influence their reporting.
I almost feel like Gingrich for railing against the media, but he's doing it with a wink and a nod, because he LOVES the media. And he loves the media for the exact same reason I hate it.
It's almost like a grasp of history is not a requirement when working in the journalism field. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*head asplode*
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure if I'd characterize him as turning his back on campaign platform issues more than Clinton, or any other politician. He's disappointed on several things, but we often forget that he's delivered on a great many of his promises as well. We also forget, sometimes, that presidents are kings, and that foremost, this one is a pragmatist first, and an idealist second.
Well, since he spent a lot of the campaign talking about civil liberties, and he's been worse than Bush on those issues...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I love "intruding".
quote: The group wants to change textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
I am trying to think about this less painful outrage than the outrage I am feeling about the poor cat, belonging to the child of a democratic campaign manager in AK, that was brutally killed and left as a message. I am not linking to the story because there is a picture.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The thing about these kinds of attempts that really gets me is that I understand what they are fighting against, and I agree that it needs to be fought against. And yet their method of fighting is laughably awful. They're trying to fight bias and distortion with outright fabrication. How can they see that as an improvement?
In fact, it sort of worries me, because it seems that if they honestly think the only way to fight the current narrative is to pretend it doesn't exist, then they're obviously incapable of actually arguing from principles why the narrative is wrong.
It reminds me of Romney and his tax return BS. He seems so embarrassed. A semi-competent, principled advocate of free markets wouldn't be ashamed that he made lots of money through capital gains and wasn't taxed as much. He would explain why making money through capital gains is good and shouldn't be taxed as much.
These guys want to rewrite history to take out the stuff that is used to bias and distort history, when they should simply be arguing against the biases and the distortions.
Idiots.
Whew. It felt good to get that off my chest, even though I know nobody here really agrees with me.
Well, except for the idiots part. Most of you probably agree about that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyr, I believe you dropped a "not" in your short 1:35 post. (Or I really haven't been paying NEARLY enough attention to US politics. )
lol thanks, nice catch.
quote:From Dan_Frank: It reminds me of Romney and his tax return BS. He seems so embarrassed. A semi-competent, principled advocate of free markets wouldn't be ashamed that he made lots of money through capital gains and wasn't taxed as much. He would explain why making money through capital gains is good and shouldn't be taxed as much.
The thing is, I don't think he's embarrassed. I think he thinks other people want him to act embarrassed about it. When candidly talking about money, he's referred to hundreds of thousands of dollars as basically not very much money, he made that 10,000 dollar bet with Perry, he refers to himself as being in the middle class despite being a gazillionaire...he's just plain tone deaf on money issues, and these things leak out of him in moments of unguarded honesty. So when he's on his game, he's a lot more reserved about it, because being the unapologetic capitalist is political fodder right now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure if I'd characterize him as turning his back on campaign platform issues more than Clinton, or any other politician. He's disappointed on several things, but we often forget that he's delivered on a great many of his promises as well. We also forget, sometimes, that presidents are kings, and that foremost, this one is a pragmatist first, and an idealist second.
Well, since he spent a lot of the campaign talking about civil liberties, and he's been worse than Bush on those issues...
Has he been? Remember he pushed for and got DADT overturned. His War on Terror stuff is highly objectionable, and I haven't been a fan of a lot of that. But I honestly don't think you can say it's really worse than Bush if you really stop and think about the things Bush did.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I imagine when Romney was working for Bain or when discussing his investments with brokers, he routinely considers sums that would be awesome (in the sense of provoking awe) to any of us. But to him, while important, are routine numbers he works with.
It's not surprising this carries over into speech patterns and mannerisms when speaking. I don't say that to his detriment either.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Dan_Frank: It reminds me of Romney and his tax return BS. He seems so embarrassed. A semi-competent, principled advocate of free markets wouldn't be ashamed that he made lots of money through capital gains and wasn't taxed as much. He would explain why making money through capital gains is good and shouldn't be taxed as much.
The thing is, I don't think he's embarrassed. I think he thinks other people want him to act embarrassed about it. When candidly talking about money, he's referred to hundreds of thousands of dollars as basically not very much money, he made that 10,000 dollar bet with Perry, he refers to himself as being in the middle class despite being a gazillionaire...he's just plain tone deaf on money issues, and these things leak out of him in moments of unguarded honesty. So when he's on his game, he's a lot more reserved about it, because being the unapologetic capitalist is political fodder right now.
Well, being tone-deaf, or even just "unapologetic" is not quite the same thing as what I'm wishing for.
It's not enough to be unapologetic. As you said, that's actually pretty detrimental politically. What I wish I saw was an actual rational coherent defense of, say, his capital gains. As opposed to embarrassment, which I agree is probably feigned, or a sort of blank shrug, which is what I suspect his natural reaction would be.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I imagine when Romney was working for Bain or when discussing his investments with brokers, he routinely considers sums that would be awesome (in the sense of provoking awe) to any of us. But to him, while important, are routine numbers he works with.
It's not surprising this carries over into speech patterns and mannerisms when speaking. I don't say that to his detriment either.
That's a really interesting point.
I spent several years in the financial industry, and worked with numbers that were nowhere near what Romney did but still much, much higher than my personal finances. And it definitely affected the way I discussed various sums of money.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't need wealthy people to be embarrassed; I just want them to be aware of the fact that they are priveleged.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I imagine when Romney was working for Bain or when discussing his investments with brokers, he routinely considers sums that would be awesome (in the sense of provoking awe) to any of us. But to him, while important, are routine numbers he works with.
It's not surprising this carries over into speech patterns and mannerisms when speaking. I don't say that to his detriment either.
That's a really interesting point.
I spent several years in the financial industry, and worked with numbers that were nowhere near what Romney did but still much, much higher than my personal finances. And it definitely affected the way I discussed various sums of money.
I'm not willing to give him a bye on that. Even when you're working with big sums, most people can still separate that reality from when they go home and balance their check book (God, that's a phrase that kids today probably don't get, isn't it?). In my last two years at the structured settlement company I used to work for, I spent most of my hours at work figuring out various scenarios for taking lump sum settlements and structuring them into annuities, so I was constantly breaking up tens of thousands of dollars and moving it around, and figuring out compound interest and all that. But when I went home, I still only made eleven dollars an hour, and I still have to pay my bills and see if I might have enough left over to put a little extra gas in my tank to go out that night or something.
The difference is between people who play with a lot of money and actually HAVE that much money, and people who dabble in big money but still go home to an actual middle class life. None of us here are millionaires, I'm sure you can see the difference. Even after all that time spent doing quotes with thousands of dollars, I still see a hundred bucks as a relatively large sum of money. I'll bet most people do. And Romney see hundreds of thousands in income as not very much, and thinks multimillionaires are middle class. He just doesn't get it, and it has nothing to do with Bain.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lyrhawn: You are also not nearly as old as Romney, and he doesn't just work with large sums, he has large sums of money. He probably knows what it's like to drop $20,000 to attend a fundraising dinner, or what it costs to have an huge accounting firm handle all his taxes, or remodel a mansion, charter a jet, buy an investment, sell that investment a week later for a quick profit of $50,000, talk to millionaires, talk to billionaires, buy a car every year, buy two cars for graduating grandkids, setup trust funds, it all goes on and on.
I have friends who in order to attend a Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas concert chartered a jet at the last second for somewhere around $50,000. I remember them posting on Facebook that the nice thing about chartering a jet is that when you leave your I-Pad on it, there's no risk of theft. I was pretty mad about it all, but when I vented to somebody about the hypocrisy of spending that much money frivolously to attend a concert celebrating Jesus, his response was "As a soda is to your salary, so is a jet to theirs."
I mean they conceded that when people are wealthy they have obligations to society that the poor do not. But if somebody is donating routinely to charity, and spends much of their time serving others, the fact they also charter a jet is no sin.
I'm not agreeing with them, but I still have to mull that over in my head.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The following quote from Mitt Romney seems to be all over the internet.
quote:I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.
Can anyone tell me if Romney actually said this and what in what context?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
The thing about these kinds of attempts that really gets me is that I understand what they are fighting against, and I agree that it needs to be fought against. And yet their method of fighting is laughably awful. They're trying to fight bias and distortion with outright fabrication. How can they see that as an improvement?
In fact, it sort of worries me, because it seems that if they honestly think the only way to fight the current narrative is to pretend it doesn't exist, then they're obviously incapable of actually arguing from principles why the narrative is wrong.
It reminds me of Romney and his tax return BS. He seems so embarrassed. A semi-competent, principled advocate of free markets wouldn't be ashamed that he made lots of money through capital gains and wasn't taxed as much. He would explain why making money through capital gains is good and shouldn't be taxed as much.
These guys want to rewrite history to take out the stuff that is used to bias and distort history, when they should simply be arguing against the biases and the distortions.
Idiots.
Whew. It felt good to get that off my chest, even though I know nobody here really agrees with me.
Well, except for the idiots part. Most of you probably agree about that.
What is the narrative that you think they are correct in fighting?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
A faustian bargain. One that a party's political base can quite easily get lured and habituated into accepting. Pay no mind, of course, to what this tends to metamorphose it into, or what the 'sleazy guy on your side' turns 'your side' into over time.
Except that, as far as I can tell, the non-sleazy guys are just as likely to stab their supporters in the back.
This is a way of admitting not being able to tell the sleazy guys from the non-sleazy guys. Your juxtaposition over to Obama is not yet convincing or conclusive and kind of supports the idea that your differentiation between backstabbers is hazy, mainly just because it has Obama as an adoptee (mostly through inaction) rather than what the Bush administration actively pushed for and drove our country (and the executive) to for Obama to inherit.
"Cutting deals with republican extortionists" sounds especially suspect. You really think he's selling out to the republican base? Which deals where? Why is he cutting them?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
The thing about these kinds of attempts that really gets me is that I understand what they are fighting against, and I agree that it needs to be fought against. And yet their method of fighting is laughably awful. They're trying to fight bias and distortion with outright fabrication. How can they see that as an improvement?
In fact, it sort of worries me, because it seems that if they honestly think the only way to fight the current narrative is to pretend it doesn't exist, then they're obviously incapable of actually arguing from principles why the narrative is wrong.
It reminds me of Romney and his tax return BS. He seems so embarrassed. A semi-competent, principled advocate of free markets wouldn't be ashamed that he made lots of money through capital gains and wasn't taxed as much. He would explain why making money through capital gains is good and shouldn't be taxed as much.
These guys want to rewrite history to take out the stuff that is used to bias and distort history, when they should simply be arguing against the biases and the distortions.
Idiots.
Whew. It felt good to get that off my chest, even though I know nobody here really agrees with me.
Well, except for the idiots part. Most of you probably agree about that.
What is the narrative that you think they are correct in fighting?
Specifically in this case: The focus on the founders as hypocritical deeply flawed men whom aren't worth most of the respect and adulation we used to heap on them. This in turn breeds a general disregard and disrespect for the Constitution they created, and the valuable traditions it lays out.
More broadly: The intense leftist narrative that permeates most schools and does its damnedest to make sure every kid leaves school thinking a certain way.
I know, I know, whining about leftist bias in schools is so passe. Don't I know that schools are supposed to be about teaching the truth, and reality has a liberal bias?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, stories like that one, and the one about TX schools, really make me question the attentiveness or the honesty of people who suggest that racism isn't still a problem in this country. Aside from a black dude getting shot dozens or hundreds of times for picking up a wallet, I don't think you'll find many more striking examples than this: we need to not mention, or not mention as much, that while our Founding Fathers were crafting the Declaration and the Constitution, many of them were engaged in atrocities.
Our culture cannot withstand even reading about how our heroes were not just unblemished moral superman, but were in fact humans as well.
The idea that there is 'something to be fought' that this sort of wicked deceit is in alignment with is as much bullshit peddled by the same people who decry the 'war on Christmas' or that claim Christians are persecuted in this country.
This awful culture war business? If it is in fact a war, an assumption I don't grant, it's been a string of nearly unbroken crushing victories for white Christian men in this nation for nearly a dozen generation, and that was acceptable and even laudable by the same people now who cry shame on us for pointing out flaws of the Founders.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Specifically in this case: The focus on the founders as hypocritical deeply flawed men whom aren't worth most of the respect and adulation we used to heap on them. This in turn breeds a general disregard and disrespect for the Constitution they created, and the valuable traditions it lays out.
For the sake of argument, let's say that is what's happening-the taught contempt for the Founders, I mean. I personally think that idea is nonsense, but for the sake of argument...
The Founders were, by and large, deeply hypocritical flawed human beings with respect to human rights concerning almost everyone except white Christian landowning men. It is unfortunate that we have to admit to that, but it is simply true. It's reality, as you said-with a liberal bias. We learn more as we grow, meaning our earlier ideas are often wrong. No shame in that.
Should this not be taugh in our schools? That our Founders had some brave, brilliant, virtuous ideas that nonetheless didn't shield them from some of the evils of their time? Can you point to me a school that fosters active contempt for them, without me being able to point out the hundreds of local schools near that one about which there aren't such stories?
It's garbage, Dan. You've been tricked into this belief that these folks have an ounce of right on their side, that their motives are in any way unobjectionable with more flawed methods than anything.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Specifically in this case: The focus on the founders as hypocritical deeply flawed men whom aren't worth most of the respect and adulation we used to heap on them. This in turn breeds a general disregard and disrespect for the Constitution they created, and the valuable traditions it lays out.
More broadly: The intense leftist narrative that permeates most schools and does its damnedest to make sure every kid leaves school thinking a certain way.
This just doesn't scan.
The idea that you *need* a cult of adulation for the individuals who wrote the constitution, and a concomitant devotion to their supposed "vision" of a nation (something entirely fanciful and divorced from the current reality, because they lived centuries ago), in order to garner a respect for and understanding of the constitution and its principles is a silly one.
Now, if you *do* attempt to push the narrative of the constitution as some sort of avatar for the will of magical people who lived centuries ago for a nation to be a certain way (ie: the way you want it to be, whomever you may be) and people quite naturally discover that the framers were not in fact gods incarnate among statesmen, but flawed human beings, then yes, people lose respect for the leads in that particular narrative, and for the narrative in general.
But the basis of the constitution is respect for the rule of law. Not respect for any cultural, religious, linguistic, or other tradition. The constitution is not anchored in the sanctification of its authors. In order for it to function, it is vital that it *not* be thus anchored. I have a very deep respect for the constitutional tradition in my country, and I learned that respect through a liberal education. And when I learned that Jackson owned slaves, and was a philanderer, and Franklin had syphilis, and Washington never cut down any cherry trees, my understanding of the principles upon which they, as part of a congress, framed a system of law was not changed. And my respect for those laws was not diminished. It was in fact enhanced; so impressed was I that such flawed and complex human beings could nevertheless forge a system of government that stood apart from their own personal fealties, wants and desires.
What is your answer to that, from a child of a liberal public education? Do tell.
quote: Don't I know that schools are supposed to be about teaching the truth, and reality has a liberal bias?
You understand, don't you, that the source of this witticism is in the observation that speaking truthfully, and comprehensively on the subjects of civics and ethics and history is often seen, by conservatives, as being "liberally biased?" That is to say, speaking in plain facts is often all that is needed to supply the "liberal position," on many perennial political topics.
And this is not because Republicans are liars, as a rule. It *is* because the conservative movement bases a great degree of its appeal on magical thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lyrhawn: You are also not nearly as old as Romney, and he doesn't just work with large sums, he has large sums of money. He probably knows what it's like to drop $20,000 to attend a fundraising dinner, or what it costs to have an huge accounting firm handle all his taxes, or remodel a mansion, charter a jet, buy an investment, sell that investment a week later for a quick profit of $50,000, talk to millionaires, talk to billionaires, buy a car every year, buy two cars for graduating grandkids, setup trust funds, it all goes on and on.
I have friends who in order to attend a Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas concert chartered a jet at the last second for somewhere around $50,000. I remember them posting on Facebook that the nice thing about chartering a jet is that when you leave your I-Pad on it, there's no risk of theft. I was pretty mad about it all, but when I vented to somebody about the hypocrisy of spending that much money frivolously to attend a concert celebrating Jesus, his response was "As a soda is to your salary, so is a jet to theirs."
I mean they conceded that when people are wealthy they have obligations to society that the poor do not. But if somebody is donating routinely to charity, and spends much of their time serving others, the fact they also charter a jet is no sin.
I'm not agreeing with them, but I still have to mull that over in my head.
Precisely.
He has no idea what it's like to live a life where money is a concern, let alone a serious concern. That was my point. It has nothing to do with some sort of language issue, he simply doesn't think about money the way the vast majority of Americans do. And he's constantly reminding us all of that EVERY TIME he opens his mouth to talk about money.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're simultaneously railing against me and the guys I was quasi-but-not-really defending, Rakeesh, so it's making it hard for me to separate the invective directed at me versus the invective directed at them.
For example, I categorically did NOT say that I don't think these things should be taught in our schools. It's worth looking at the time the founders lived in, and how horrible those times were, and how horrible things were for everyone, and how they were especially horrible for black people and certain other groups.
That shouldn't be whitewashed, (hell, to do so takes away from their accomplishment!) and the fact that this group wants to do that is despicable. I'm pretty sure I said this already, so either I screwed up and I'm responding to vitriol you didn't intend for me, or you ignored what I said for what you thought I might be saying.
That the framers by and large rose above the sewer they lived in to create something so timeless is awesome and breathtaking. I don't think you need to worship them to respect their document, but I do think that characterizing them as a bunch of flawed old dead white men from a bygone era (while 100% factual!) totally misses the point.
Orincoro has posted since I started this, so to that I will add that I agree with what you're saying for the first half of your post, and I clearly missed the mark with my first short response.
In particular, I realized one way I'm being misread, because I wasn't clear: I didn't intend to say that we should heap adulation on them, and that by not doing so we are failing. Rather, the common narrative I think I see in schools lays out that entire statement: "The founders are hypocritical deeply flawed men who aren't worth most of the respect and adulation we used to heap on them. Consequently, the stuff they did isn't all that impressive."
This is absolutely the narrative I see in schools here, but in fairness I'm in the SF Bay Area and Berkeley in particular, so I suppose if there's gonna be a leftist bias it's almost guaranteed to be worst here.
As for your remark about how simply reporting facts leads to being accused of a leftist bias... come on, spare me. There are facts and facts. It's not reporting on factual occurrences that is biased, it's selective reporting of only the facts that paint a very particular picture.
Again, I'm not in favor of whitewashing history. But I'm also really tired of the current narrative in education, which tends to focus on very particular historical facts.
(Example from the article: These idiot Tennesseeans wanted to suppress historical teaching of KKK violence, and wanted to add a requirement of teaching about Black Panther violence. One of these efforts is racist and deplorable, the other I agree with. Maybe you can guess which is which.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Rather, the common narrative I think I see in schools lays out that entire statement: "The founders are hypocritical deeply flawed men who aren't worth most of the respect and adulation we used to heap on them. Consequently, the stuff they did isn't all that impressive."
Man I was in high school in hippie liberalville and it wasn't even remotely like this. From what are you getting the idea that this is a school narrative in america? Or where? Or how common? I don't want this to be a dig but christ it sounds like something you got from paranoid, Breitbartian media.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Whelp... it's not. (Though I suppose I see corroborating examples from places like that on occasion.)
It's what I encountered in school in Berkeley. It's what friends of mine encountered (and, sadly, in many cases bought into) in... elsewhere in the East Bay and in southern CA. It's what my partner encountered in in the east bay (and to an admittedly slightly lesser extend in northern AZ).
Hmm, I just took a step back from this post, and realized that as I added to this list I was really adding to the "leftist bias in education" argument and not specifically to that characterization of the framers. So, if I assume you're granting that education in general has a strong leftist bent, and are just disputing this particular example, I should amend my statement.
As far as that particular example goes, I think it's probably on the more extreme end of the phenomenon, and the only explicit example I have (without searching for some cherry picked examples through the paranoid Breitbartian media) is my own personal experience in Berkeley.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember getting into almost any of this in high school. I mean we talked about the Framers and stuff, but we didn't get the determined reverence angle or the "flawed useless old white men" argument.
By the time I got to college, I had my own ideas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I feel that education having a "strong leftist bent" is purely a matter of where one subjectively puts the midpoint in order to compare. When you look at the criteria that most people use to determine a "bent" in schools, it comes down to the issue of the extremely wild variability they have in determining where the threshold of 'non-leftistiness' exists. Unsurprisingly, the vast vast majority of people who complain about the "strong leftist bent" of schools are doing so under the framework that it is a "leftist bent" to teach even the acceptability of homosexuality, or even not scrub the ouchy little details of our country's history — little unimportant things like hundreds of years of genocide, for instance — or to even not allow teachers to organize prayer in schools. The case made by the people who argue a strong leftist bent makes my case about this being a pure reception of underlying bias. So too would the fact that you would find yourself arguing with this crowd constantly on what constitutes evidence of a leftist bias.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyr: I've been mostly lumping High School and College together here, but I will freely admit that I think the problem I'm bitching about is orders of magnitude worse in college than it is in high school. However, I definitely think that it exists in high school and even elementary school.
Sam: So, because different people have different ideas of what a leftist bias is, it's an irrelevant distinction? I'm confused. Again, I don't have a problem with teaching facts, it is the selective teaching of facts to support an agenda that I object to.
Lots of people think there is a leftist bias in schools for issues totally unrelated to homosexuality/evolution etc. The evangelical Christian right is not the only game in town, or even the biggest. They might be the loudest, but I think even that's been changing over the last few years.
I keep writing and erasing various attempts to understand your point, here. How does the existence of multiple perspectives somehow translate to you as "It's all subjective and can't be argued?" Or is that even what you're saying? I must be missing something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No. It's that the case for a "strong leftist bias" in schools is without fail the product of people interpreting their right-wing bias as the point of nonbias. When you force a person to outline a detailed evidentiary case supporting more than just 'a feeling' or a general personal assumption that there is, quote, strong leftist bias in schools, you are not given an effective case that schools are teaching a strongly left-wing agenda. You are given a series of whatever juicy examples they can find and try to apply as systemic — never an overall analyses, no methodology — and it is nearly always coupled with proof that what they desire and support as a point of nonbias is easily right wing (in a myriad of ways, not just evangelical or free-market). The conceptualization of schools as overall right wing by left wingers has been equally strongly argued, and equally as transparent, or fails to look beyond the regional bias of their area. I could take any of your number of schools-being-left-wing from cali and pour fourth a myriad of counterstories from Texas and the american south where social pressures and even concerted efforts by right-wing revisioneers that are certainly much more systemic examples than some teachers not being nice enough to the founding fathers. Nightmare stories of whole states having right-wing religious pressures and teachers pushing agendas much more overt than that (usually in the fields of Biology, Science, and History) without challenge. Were I to take these and manifest them on their own as a case that schools have a "rightist bias" or even a "strong rightist bias" I would be, well, making the same mistake as you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, okay. That makes much more sense! And yeah, in many respects you're right. My impression is totally an aggregate of juicy examples coupled with overall trends in the political views of teachers and the political views of students.
The first of which, being anecdotal, is pretty invalid. And the second of which, being correlational, is also pretty invalid.
So what type of analyses have actually been done on this topic, and what methodologies did they use? What kind of analysis would you find persuasive?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Addendum: I was thinking about this on the drive home, and the more I think about it the more eager I am to hear your response, Sam. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a study on this topic that wouldn't, in essence, boil down to an aggregate of anecdotes or a summary of trends and correlations. So I'm curious to see what I'm missing.
Or is it just that, yes, that is the only way to do it, and studies show that the anecdotes and correlations are pretty much what you'd expect geographically? (Leftist on the coasts, right wing in the south, etc.)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: "Cutting deals with republican extortionists" sounds especially suspect. You really think he's selling out to the republican base? Which deals where? Why is he cutting them?
Which deals: The "compromise" budget cuts following the default showdown are one example. A better one was ditching the public option.
quote: there was already ample evidence that the White House had, in fact, secretly negotiated away the public option early on in the process, including confirmation from a New York Times reporter of the existence of such a deal, as well the fact that Russ Feingold said as clearly as he could that the reason there was no public option in the final bill was because the White House never pushed for it, because the final bill — without the public option — was the “legislation that the president wanted in the first place.”
But now, definitive evidence has emerged that this is exactly what happened: a new book by Tom Daschle. As Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress expertly documents — both by citing to Daschle’s book and by interviewing him — the White House had negotiated away the public option very early in the process (July, 2009), even though Obama and the administration spent months after that assuring their supporters that they were doing everything they could do have a public option in the bill
Why he cut the deals: To keep the corporate contributions flowing, obviously.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Your juxtaposition over to Obama is not yet convincing or conclusive and kind of supports the idea that your differentiation between backstabbers is hazy, mainly just because it has Obama as an adoptee (mostly through inaction) rather than what the Bush administration actively pushed for and drove our country (and the executive) to for Obama to inherit.
You wouldn't call the Awlaki assassination, and NDAA, "active pushing" on the administration's part?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't remember getting into almost any of this in high school. I mean we talked about the Framers and stuff, but we didn't get the determined reverence angle or the "flawed useless old white men" argument.
By the time I got to college, I had my own ideas.
I always laugh when I read John Adams by McCullough and how in his own time Adams bemoans how American history is already screwed up beyond repair with bad scholarship, in HIS day. That nobody really gets how it all happened. The more I read about the revolution the more I realize there's just SO much there that makes it all happen. Small tiny mundane quirks, and also majestic miraculous developments. The problem is it's so easy to keep it all very neat and tidy with God sent the founding fathers who were men of faith to found the country, and their genius, and charisma, and Christian moral certitude combined with God's power were what created this nation much in the way God simply willed the earth into existence.
Any deviation from that tidy narrative is leftist revisionist history. I remember how blown away I was when we discussed 1920s America and just how strong socialism was then, and when we contrasted the then current 2000 election, and the right's rhetoric about leftist Socialism in the debates, having that 1920s context made it just so funny.
I don't get my shits and giggles out of finding out the founders were men with vices, but I do think it's important that students of American history learn things like Jefferson was terrible at managing money, in part because he insisted on buying the latest scientific tools and art, and Alexander Hamilton was a bastard child and because of that felt he had something to prove through merit so he could shed that stigma. Both of those things are useful in helping us see why Jefferson was such a renaissance man, or why Hamilton had almost an inexhaustible source of ambition, not to mention Hamilton finding that one could get prestige and rank in the military comparable to a lordship or knighthood, and favored making the military the replacement for that system.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've never heard a more concise explanation of why Ron Paul doesn't understand his own proposals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The trick is, though you won't find hardly a lick of support for Paul's policies among even lifelong economists who've studied and lived it their whole lives, or successful entrepreneurs...well, they don't understand because they don't understand. Or they've sold out. Or they're brainwashed. Or...something. It's never that the ideas might just be bad, they're in fact SO good that to disagree in itself is evidence of some flaw.
And yet we're supposed to take Paul supporters seriously, and not treat their politics with contempt.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer, Awlaki did a hell of a lot more than exercise his right to free speech. It's not limitless for pity's sake, it's not a damn suicide pact with our enemies!
I'm sorry to react so stridently, but free speech simply does not give me the right to advocate for the violent overthrow of the American government. It doesn't give me the right to goad others into waging violent jihad against the US.
I've got my problems with the means by which we arrived at the decision to assassinate him, but to suggest it was done because he 'exercised his freedom of sleech'? That's simply ludicrous! I have to wonder if you're aware of what some of his words were, or the sorts of people he lent his media support to.
God. Assassinated for free speech indeed. There's a case to be made that the system by which approved the assassination needs further scrutiny. But for someone who advocates the only just war is for Islam, that Islam needs to be the world's religion, violently if need be (and of course it would be), someone who speaks and preaches repeatedly to imminent terrorists and even in the case of a few of the 9/11 'hijackers' actually gave them material support...
Kill him. And don't let's pretend it's because he was 'exercising his right to free speech'.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh I just wanted to say I agree with you wholeheartedly re: Awlaki.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Lifelong economists like F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc. Where do you thing he gets his ideas?
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
If you don't think advocation of violence is protected speech, how do you make sense of Brandenberg v. Ohio ? Where does it go wrong?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course, Earl, I'm sure Awlaki never once in his many close personal consultations with multiple either past or soon-to-be terrorists advocated specific violence, or gave approval for it. Goodness, no.
They were exchanging snickerdoodle recipes, I'm sure.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, I bet there are some Hatrackers with some killer snickerdoodle recipes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Should I have italicized "killer?" Too on-the-nose?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: Lifelong economists like F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc. Where do you thing he gets his ideas?
Economic Mad Libs and an 8 Ball?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You could follow up by saying that our snickerdoodles are to...to...*choke*...die for....*expire*
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: Lifelong economists like F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, etc. Where do you thing he gets his ideas?
Economic Mad Libs and an 8 Ball?
This isn't a very good argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude. You can't say, "People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics," and leave it at that and then criticize other people's arguments. C'mon, Earl.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Again, Rakeesh, I have to cite Greenwald (I'm not a disciple of the guy, I actually think he's kind of a dick, but he's right about this issue).
quote:Indeed, the First Amendment not only protects the mere “attending” of a speech “promoting the violent overthrow of our government,” but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech.
The KKK leader in Brandenburg was convicted under an Ohio statute that made it a crime to ”advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and/or to “voluntarily assemble with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.” The Court struck down the statute on the ground that it “purports to punish mere advocacy” and thus “sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.” The Court ruled that “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” — meaning conduct such as standing outside someone’s house with an angry mob and urging them to burn the house down that moment — “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force“ (emphasis added).
quote:Of course, Earl, I'm sure Awlaki never once in his many close personal consultations with multiple either past or soon-to-be terrorists advocated specific violence, or gave approval for it. Goodness, no.
Do we have any evidence of what he said in these meetings?
Reminder: This is America. The burden of proof rests with the accuser.
ETA: I mean, why should cops even have to use wiretaps anymore? Everyone knows Stringer Bell was meeting with a bunch of drug dealers. What do you think they were doing, exchanging Snickerdoodle recipes? Let's just lock 'em all up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... but free speech simply does not give me the right to advocate for the violent overthrow of the American government.
Huh, I guess with this change, OSC should start watching out then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, I am curious about the Founding Father Fenomenon. Who do you consider the founding fathers to be? (I am looking for actual names, here.) Do you consider them to be in some way different than other men?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
quote:Do we have any evidence of what he said in these meetings?
Reminder: This is America. The burden of proof rests with the accuser.
ETA: I mean, why should cops even have to use wiretaps anymore? Everyone knows Stringer Bell was meeting with a bunch of drug dealers. What do you think they were doing, exchanging Snickerdoodle recipes? Let's just lock 'em all up.
First of all, let's be clear: do you actually believe for a second that he didn't speak with terrorists about specific, near-term acts of terrorism during his many, many, many encounters with them and encourage them that it was not only justified but actually required for political and religious reasons?
As to the issue at hand, I have no real doubt that Awlaki didn't speak to 'incite or produce imminent lawless action'. Were specific statements produced openly by the government to the public to that effect? Nope. Then again, how could they do so? And to ask a further question, if they had, such statements could only have come from, well, the government-either through human intelligence or some sort of surveillance. Would you then trust the government's word that he said what they said he said?
I just want to point out I suspect there isn't anything you would accept as evidence aside from an open public statement from Awlaki to a specific terrorist to committ a specific act of violence, and that terrorist then committed that act of violence. You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, Destineer, but if I'm right about what you would regard as sufficient surely you see how absurd it is.
Underlying your premise seems to be-and again, you can correct me if I'm wrong about this-that Awlaki is the same as ordinary domestic criminals. That the means by which we police and prosecute, say, local drug dealers should be what we use on Awlaki-limited to that extent. If that is in fact what you're saying, let's just be clear: it will mean we cannot find them, listen in to what they're saying and doing, and kill them nearly as often. Just to get that out there on the bottom line: international terrorists require a different kind of law enforcement than local drug dealers if they're going to be impeded in any meaningful way.
(Oh, yeah, hey-I remembered I was in America. Thanks for the reminder, though.)
ETA: Stringer Bell is a curious example for you to use, Destineer, I must admit. Throughout five seasons, he would hardly even have been known to law enforcement much less seriously investigated had more than a few corners not been cut and some line-crossing here and there been done.
It would've been a pretty boring show had the police and prosecutors and judges played absolutely 100% by the letter and spirit of the law at all times and in all instances. McNulty and a few other people would've harbored personal suspicions of conspiracy and drug empire, and perhaps they would've gotten some wires up and running, but that's just about where it would've stopped.
In any event, Stringer was not exactly shall we say apprehended by law enforcement anyway.
-------------
Mucus,
Actually, Card has been pretty careful if memory serves to not advocate violence in the present, or even to advocate future violence. There were at least two or three degrees of haziness in between his lips and acts of violence. Something like 'if, in the future, liberals/liberal judges continue to overthrow the will of the people, they would then be justified in armed revolution'. Pretty sneaky language, really.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To bad we will never know as he was never tried, even in absentia.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:First of all, let's be clear: do you actually believe for a second that he didn't speak with terrorists about specific, near-term acts of terrorism during his many, many, many encounters with them and encourage them that it was not only justified but actually required for political and religious reasons?
I think it's entirely possible--not extremely likely, but maybe about 20-30% likely, which is enough to support a reasonable doubt--that he met with them to express sympathy with their cause and/or to discuss how to propagandize more young Muslim men to become terrorists. It's entirely possible that they said, "Hey, Anwar, here's our plan we've already settled on," and he said, "God bless you. Here's what I've been doing to convince people to join your cause."
quote: I just want to point out I suspect there isn't anything you would accept as evidence aside from an open public statement from Awlaki to a specific terrorist to committ a specific act of violence, and that terrorist then committed that act of violence. You can correct me if I'm wrong on that, Destineer, but if I'm right about what you would regard as sufficient surely you see how absurd it is.
I'd accept sworn testimony from witnesses who heard him give orders to a terrorist. I'd gladly accept a surveillance tape in which you hear and/or see him doing so.
quote:Just to get that out there on the bottom line: international terrorists require a different kind of law enforcement than local drug dealers if they're going to be impeded in any meaningful way.
What's your proof for this? UK authorities foiled many Irish terror plots over the years while staying within the bounds of due process (although sometimes they broke those rules, to tragic effect, as in The Name of the Father).
But yeah, more attacks would get through. That's not that big a problem in the big scheme of things. With one big exception, terrorists kill way fewer Americans than drug dealers do.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, I am curious about the Founding Father Fenomenon. Who do you consider the founding fathers to be? (I am looking for actual names, here.) Do you consider them to be in some way different than other men?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I mean, everyone is different, so...
Are you genuinely asking me to list all of the founders? Or is it that I keep using founder/framer interchangeably, which I know can lead to some confusion.... so, to clarify, I'm generally referring to the framers of the US Constitution as opposed to, say, the signers of the Declaration or the Articles of Confederation. There's massive overlap here, obviously, but it's specifically the framers that I've been thinking of. Does that help? I can direct you to their wiki page if you'd like to know all their names.
Seriously, though, I'm really not sure what you're asking me. Do I think they're different than normal men? Sure. Are you asking if I think they were somehow supermen given to us by God? No, of course not.
In terms of how different they were, well, of note, despite living in horrifically oppressive times they managed to create the first government in history which explicitly put the freedom and individual rights of the citizens before the interests of the government. It was an exceptional achievement and I think they were exceptional men, despite their flaws.
Once again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying they were flawless, or that we should whitewash their flaws. Heck, some of their greatest accomplishments in the Constitution (and the ensuing government precedents) came as a direct result of their flaws.
All I said on that issue was that, having seen some of the ways a really intensely anti-American teacher can spin their flaws into denigrating everything they built, I understood the impulse the stupid saps in Tennessee were acting on (to force teachers to present the framers as exceptional). Sort of the way I imagine you can understand the impulse that might drive someone to an Occupy protest, even as I'm sure you would disavow the Occupiers who rape, steal and vandalize.
So again, for clarity: Those guys are historical vandals, and that's not something I support.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...Something like 'if, in the future, liberals/liberal judges continue to overthrow the will of the people, they would then be justified in armed revolution'.
That seems pretty mushy to me.
To be clear, there are factors that distinguish OSC from this other American. I'm just don't think that OSC limiting his remarks to the indefinite future is one of the important ones. It also leads to weird results where this guy gains or loses rights by jumping in between, e.g. "If the Americans continue to meddle in the Middle East, we should blow them up" vs. "While the Americans continue to meddle in the Middle East, we should blow them up."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan,
I am not asking you to list all of them - but what are your boundaries? The men in the Continental Congress? The leaders of the Continental Army? Patriots like Paul Revere? The drafters of the Constitution? All of those?
For contrast, I don't think that they, as a group, were in some qualitative way different from ordinary men. I think that the times they lived in were, while horrific for many, extraordinary times for privileged white men which they were. There were living during the Enlightenment for heaven's sake! The "founding fathers" as I think of them were not remotely horrifically oppressed. They, as a group, had considerable freedom, wealth, education, and leisure. I think that they did an extraordinary thing, but it wasn't a thing without precedent. The idea of individual rights hardly started with the US. Our manifestation of it was part of an evolution of thought and our idealizing the founding fathers as somehow special stifles further growth. Which I think would disappoint them.
Also, for someone so enamoured of their achievement, you might want to recall that they thought a trial by jury was a fairly significant individual right.
Destineer, I can't express how dismayed I am by the idea that we should be looking up to the civil rights example of the British in N. Ireland.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan,
I am not asking you to list all of them - but what are your boundaries? The men in the Continental Congress? The leaders of the Continental Army? Patriots like Paul Revere? The drafters of the Constitution? All of those?
Again, I'm generally referring specifically to the framers. That is, the delegates who drafted and signed the US Constitution. This includes many of the Patriots and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, but there those aren't what I'm really focusing on.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For contrast, I don't think that they, as a group, were in some qualitative way different from ordinary men. I think that the times they lived in were, while horrific for many, extraordinary times for privileged white men which they were. There were living during the Enlightenment for heaven's sake! The "founding fathers" as I think of them were not remotely horrifically oppressed. They, as a group, had considerable freedom, wealth, education, and leisure.
I'd take living in poverty in our country today over living as any of them did.
If you get what I'm saying, you'll probably call it a cheat because of how insanely improved the quality of life is, even for the impoverished in our country today, compared to pre-industrial times.
But that's the point.
They lived in horrific times. Even privileged white land-owners could die of smallpox, or an infected blister. They certainly had it great compared to most people in their time, and their comparative level of leisure gave them the time to study things like philosophy, which of course led them to their greatest achievement.
And by our lights they were hypocrites, racists, and misogynists... but comparatively? To my knowledge, the only significant group of abolitionists in their time were the Quakers, who were essentially a fringe movement. Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document. That's a pretty good accomplishment for a pack of privileged racist white men.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that they did an extraordinary thing, but it wasn't a thing without precedent. The idea of individual rights hardly started with the US. Our manifestation of it was part of an evolution of thought and our idealizing the founding fathers as somehow special stifles further growth. Which I think would disappoint them.
I don't see how it stifles further growth.
It might stifle erratic and ill-thought out "growth," but I really don't see how it stifles growth as a whole. Clarify?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, my single biggest problem with Awlaki's death was that he wasn't tried in absentia. It's not as though he wouldn't have known we were gunning for him all along anyway, so it wouldn't have served as a warning to him to be more careful and thus make the hit harder. We could've-and should've-tried him and convicted him in absentia years ago.
--------
quote:I think it's entirely possible--not extremely likely, but maybe about 20-30% likely, which is enough to support a reasonable doubt--that he met with them to express sympathy with their cause and/or to discuss how to propagandize more young Muslim men to become terrorists. It's entirely possible that they said, "Hey, Anwar, here's our plan we've already settled on," and he said, "God bless you. Here's what I've been doing to convince people to join your cause."
I would grant that as a much, much lower possibility. It simply doesn't make sense-why on Earth would he limit himself to that in private? Certainly not because he didn't actively agree with and endorse suicide bombings and other terrorism, I hope you'll agree.
In any event, I'd be fine with offing him even if that was provably all he'd done. Sorry, if you're going to operate internationally in an effort-successful or really damaging in many cases-to destroy or weaken our government or those of our allies, to help incite civil wars, to be an effective recruitment tool for those who will do so, we might just kill you, if we can. And won't have violated any sort of decency in doing so.
quote:I'd accept sworn testimony from witnesses who heard him give orders to a terrorist. I'd gladly accept a surveillance tape in which you hear and/or see him doing so.
Now he has to give orders? And in any event, you'd accept government testimony of such a thing, but you wouldn't accept for example government claims that they exist? In the case particularly of a surveillance tape, isn't that much the same thing?
quote:What's your proof for this? UK authorities foiled many Irish terror plots over the years while staying within the bounds of due process (although sometimes they broke those rules, to tragic effect, as in The Name of the Father).
But yeah, more attacks would get through. That's not that big a problem in the big scheme of things. With one big exception, terrorists kill way fewer Americans than drug dealers do.
How do you know they did this while staying within the bounds of law, Destineer? But even if for the sake of argument they did (you even note they didn't, dismissing it pretty off-handedly), why is it reasonable to consider the IRA and associated groups and Al Qaeda the same sort of animal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles Lots of pseudo-legal shenanigans on the part of both sides throughout the decades, Destineer. It's strange to hear you claim their record was so legally clean.
Your comparison to drug dealers isn't very valid. For one thing, the clear problem with drug dealers isn't one of law enforcement, it's of policy. We've also got a much vaster array of tools with which to deal with drug dealers (and admittedly a larger group to deal with)-I hardly think you'd support vastly amping up special forces, intelligence services, cooperation with local (often pretty nasty) governments, etc. etc. in order to fight terrorism, would you?
(At least we're not talking about Stringer Bell anymore, eh?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And by our lights they were hypocrites, racists, and misogynists... but comparatively? To my knowledge, the only significant group of abolitionists in their time were the Quakers, who were essentially a fringe movement. Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document. That's a pretty good accomplishment for a pack of privileged racist white men.
Errrr. Dan, slavery was built into the US Constitution, I'm afraid. Argue political necessity all you like, and there's a great case to be made (one I agree with) that it wouldn't have happened without it, but to me it seems to take a very strange PoV to regard the US Constitution as 'fundamentally anti-slavery'. Unless we're going to look at its ideals expressed in the late 18th century through an early 21st century lens, which is something of a bit of trickery I think.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it stifles further growth in the same way that the Catholic Church's idiotic ideas on infallibility* hold us back. We think that some humans are "special" and can't make mistakes and we start to think that what they did is, rather than being really good, is perfect. And that keeps us from improving it.
*Not the actual doctrine of infallibility which is fairly narrow, but what we tend to think of as infallibility.
For what it is worth, I don't particularly blame them for being no better than most men of their time. I think that, generally, they were good men. I think that many believed, as did their society, that slavery was not a bad thing. Jefferson did though, and kept slaves anyway. He even admitted the hypocrisy of this. He doesn't have to be perfect to have done a remarkable thing but he did know better.
If we are going to give them a pass for living in the 18th century, we don't also get to pity them for the trials of living in the 18th century many of which would not have occurred to them as being trial.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Note for the future: It turns out the Chinese government *can* assassinate suspected terrorists living in the US without violating any sort of decency.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yemen just hated having him dead or targeted, hmm? In this future hypothetical, these terrorists against China, they wouldn't be apprehended or attempted to apprehend by the US, right.
Pithy is fun, Mucus, but I know you can do better than that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Why do you think I'm talking about the future or that this is a hypothetical?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And by our lights they were hypocrites, racists, and misogynists... but comparatively? To my knowledge, the only significant group of abolitionists in their time were the Quakers, who were essentially a fringe movement. Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document. That's a pretty good accomplishment for a pack of privileged racist white men.
Errrr. Dan, slavery was built into the US Constitution, I'm afraid. Argue political necessity all you like, and there's a great case to be made (one I agree with) that it wouldn't have happened without it, but to me it seems to take a very strange PoV to regard the US Constitution as 'fundamentally anti-slavery'. Unless we're going to look at its ideals expressed in the late 18th century through an early 21st century lens, which is something of a bit of trickery I think.
I think Frederick Douglass argues the point much better than I ever could.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it stifles further growth in the same way that the Catholic Church's idiotic ideas on infallibility* hold us back. We think that some humans are "special" and can't make mistakes and we start to think that what they did is, rather than being really good, is perfect. And that keeps us from improving it.
*Not the actual doctrine of infallibility which is fairly narrow, but what we tend to think of as infallibility.
Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think that what they did was perfect, nor do I think they were infallible. Sorry if I gave that impression.
But I do think that it would be harder than many people seem to think for us to devise a better system, and I don't really think that doing so should be a priority.
I respect our traditions, but I don't worship them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Why do you think I'm talking about the future or that this is a hypothetical?
Well...
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Note for the future: It turns out the Chinese government *can* assassinate suspected terrorists living in the US without violating any sort of decency.
Maybe I'm missing something...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, I see the confusion.
What that means is that the note is for the future for my records in case the topic comes up again. However, the assassinations with Rakeesh's blessing may as well start now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another problem that I have with idealizing either the Constitution or the men who framed it is that those who do it often tend to enshrine American Exceptionalism as if we were special because of who we are rather than what we do. As if being special was a quality that simply came with being American no matter what we do. They then tend to believe that (because we are the ones doing it) whatever we do is good.
I believe that it is the other way around. It is what we do or don't do that makes the US "special" and these days we are letting go of a lot of those principles. For example, I (used to) think that America was special because we didn't kill or imprison people without a trial.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And by our lights they were hypocrites, racists, and misogynists... but comparatively? To my knowledge, the only significant group of abolitionists in their time were the Quakers, who were essentially a fringe movement.
I'm sorry Dan but this is factually incorrect. At the time the US constitution was written, abolitionism was very well established. The rationalist philosophers of the enlightment, who were the primary inspiration for the framers of the constitution, considered slavery a violation of the rights of man and were outspoken proponents of abolish. Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. It was abolished in Portugal in 1777. Nearly all the northern states had either abolished slavery or had adopted laws to gradually abolish slavery well before the constitutional convention began. Slavery was perhaps the most controversial issue at the constitutional convention. Many delegates wanted the constitution abolish or severely restrict slavery. Abolish was not a fringe issue in anyway, it was a major controversy. Many of delegates in the constitutional convention strongly favored Federal regulation or prohibition of slavery. The pro-slavery states prevailed not because abolitionism was unpopular but because the delegates, as a body, felt the need to form a union was greater than the need to settle the slavery issue.
quote:Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document. That's a pretty good accomplishment for a pack of privileged racist white men.
I believe this is also factually incorrect. I am unaware of any anti-slavery language in either the US constitution of the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you could point out the parts you think are anti-slavery.
The closest thing I can think of is that the US constitution did not restrict the right to serve in elected office or vote in elections to property owners.
On the other hand, the constitution also did not (and still does not) guarantee any individual the right to vote in any election. States were given the right to choose "electors" for the house of representatives with the sole restriction that the electors must meet the requirements to serve in the house (i.e be male citizens over 21).
States were free to limit voting rights as they saw fit until after the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th and 15tht amendments. Even with the 14th and 15th amendments, states could still restrict the right to vote on almost any criteria except race, but doing so incurred a proportional decrease in the number of representatives they would be granted. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited states from denying voting rights on criteria (such as literacy tests) that had the effect of discriminating based on race. To the best of my understanding, there is still no constitutional provision that would prevent states from severely restricting voting rights on grounds other than race, gender or age. A state could for example, limit voting rights to people with over $1 million in personal property or persons with doctoral degrees or person affiliated with selected parties** or persons weighing under 200 lbs. Choosing to do this would result in a proportional decrease in the number of representatives allotted to the state, but it would not be prohibited.
**Outrageous as that may sound, many states do exactly this for primary elections and a state could, at least in theory, opt for this kind of restriction in other elections as well.
[ January 24, 2012, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
Your definition of the Framers makes them almost useless in a historical context. Founders, as a broader term that encompasses a couple of extremely important extra individuals is far more helpful for one very important reason. After the Constitution was ratified, no one still knew what the hell it meant. Because, even as Frederick Douglass pointed out, do you count intentions or a plain text reading? What do you do when a plain text reading of the document results in two different interpretations, because the framers were simply too vague on many, MANY points? Who is the final arbiter? Well, the Constitution does NOT clearly state that it's the Supreme Court. Congress thought that THEY were the final word, and would basically police themselves. So John Marshall ended up being maybe the most important Founding Father, because his words on what the Constitution meant set the tone for decades after.
That's why the document was in so many ways IMPERFECT, because it led to so much damn fighting over what the hell it actually meant.
Frederick Douglass was just plain flat-out wrong, for a number of reasons. I understand the argument he was trying to make, and it was a bold one at the time, but there wasn't a court in the land who agreed with him, especially not the Taney Court that was in power at the time and expressly DISAGREED with him. Guess whose word carried more weight? Douglass was trying to form a legal argument that could be used under the current regime that would guarantee freedom, but it took a 100 years, a real war, a virtual guerrilla war in the 50s and 60s, and hundreds of course cases and laws to prove that that Constitution meant what he thought it meant (it also took three constitutional amendments).
I tend to agree with kate about the problems with idealizing the document. The more you sanctify it, the harder it is to fault it, and thus to remedy its problems. It's why I think the GOP spends so much time waxing rhapsodic about the founding fathers. The more infallible you make them appear, the harder it is to assail their creation.
Plus you have to consider that a great deal of the Constitution was derivative. They were borrowing, and outright stealing from a host of European Enlightenment thinkers. They put it together in a very, very interesting way, but the vast majority of the pieces weren't original.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rabbit -
quote:I'm sorry Dan but this is factually incorrect. At the time the US constitution was written, abolitionism was very well established. The rationalist philosophers of the enlightment, who were the primary inspiration for the framers of the constitution, considered slavery a violation of the rights of man and were outspoken proponents of abolish. Slavery was abolished in England in 1772. It was abolished in Portugal in 1777. Nearly all the northern states had either abolished slavery or had adopted laws to gradually abolish slavery well before the constitutional convention began. Slavery was perhaps the most controversial issue at the constitutional convention. Many delegates wanted the constitution abolish or severely restrict slavery. Because several southern states refused to join the union if slavery was not allowed the constitution allowed states to regulate slavery
Based on what Dan said, specifically, I don't think he's far off. He said the "only significant groups of abolitionists." Northern states by and large did not offer manumission when they outlawed slavery. Mostly, one of two things happened: 1. Northern slave owners simply moved south. 2. Northern slave owners simply sold all their slaves to the south and made a boatload of cash by liquidating their investments right around the time the Atlantic Slave Trade was illegalized. And why was the Slave Trade made illegal? It certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons. More slaves in the South meant more economic and political power, and the North was already staring down the barrel at 70 years of Southern political power, and didn't want to make it any worse.
Abolitionist groups in the sense that Dan is talking about didn't come about until the nineteenth-century. And since he's largely talking about sensibilities, you have to look at motive. Many, even by the time the Free Soilers came about, didn't want slavery spread because they didn't want to be anywhere near blacks, not because they actually gave a damn. The Garrisonians were a great minority until the 1840s and onward.
The only explicitly anti-slavery piece of the Constitution I can think of is the part that put a two-decade moratorium on the issue of the Atlantic Slave Trade...though how you interpret that is debatable. They knew that as soon as the moratorium was over that the Trade would be outlawed...but then they did include the protection to begin with. So do you count the protection as pro-slavery, or do you look at the fact that it had a sunset provision as anti-slavery? Either way I fundamentally agree with you on it as a pro-slavery document.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, I think it's interesting how my stance of "I dislike how schools denigrate the Constitution" has been flipped around to "How dare anyone speak ill of the infallible Constitution." I think this makes sense in light of something Sam said a page or two ago: He's never encountered the attitude that I'm talking about. So clearly, at least insofar as the Constitution is concerned, the attitude I encountered in school is rare. That's great! It pleases me.
But I think it also means that you guys are trying to interpret my comments through what you're aware of in schools, as if I am calling whatever that might be "Denigrating the Constitution," when in fact I probably wouldn't.
I think I'm done trying to argue this, because I agree with most of what Kate, Rabbit, and Lyr are saying. I don't think the Founders/Framers/Constitution are infallible. I think that trying to act as if they are (like the Tennesseeans of the original topic were trying to do) is totally wrongheaded.
Just to poke this bear of an argument one more time, I will say to Lyrhawn: I have a significant problem with the Supreme Court as arbiters of the Constitution. I understand that, practically speaking, people argue about what the Constitution means, so I understand why things developed the way they did. But I think that SCOTUS has done at least as much harm as good over the years, which to me is fairly unsurprising considering how much power is being given to a very small group of people.
Given this problem, arguments against Douglass like "He's wrong because the courts in his time disagreed with him" really don't persuade me. Right and wrong is not a function of the courts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, that was specifically why I asked you if you thought the Founding Fathers were "different" than other men. You responded, "Do I think they're different than normal men? Sure."
Now. I think that you are far from the worst or even a typical example of what I am talking about, but you are on the edge of it and a window into the mind set.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, that was specifically why I asked you if you thought the Founding Fathers were "different" than other men. You responded, "Do I think they're different than normal men? Sure."
I also think that Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill were different from normal men.
In this way: most men don't achieve greatness. For those that do, I think it has more to do with their intellect and character than simple luck or happenstance. So I think that makes them different and, yes, better, than "normal" (average) men. Certainly better than me!
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Now. I think that you are far from the worst or even typical example of what I am talking about, but you are a window into the mind set.
Thank you I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan_Frank, I think reason people may be misinterpreting what you have said, is that we really aren't familiar with anything schools do that might be reasonably be considered denigrating the constitution. Since we aren't familiar with things schools do to denigrate the constitution, we are referring to things we know happen -- schools teaching about the legitimate failings of the founding fathers and real limitations of the constitution.
Could you please give us some specific examples of what was taught in your school that you think denigrated the constitution so I have an idea what you are talking about.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think I'd rather accept that the experience I'm remembering was rare and unique, and not dwell on it. And go forward with the belief that, although there may be a leftist bias in schools, this does not generally extend into actually denigrating the founding document of our country. Which is A-Okay with me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote:Just to poke this bear of an argument one more time, I will say to Lyrhawn: I have a significant problem with the Supreme Court as arbiters of the Constitution. I understand that, practically speaking, people argue about what the Constitution means, so I understand why things developed the way they did. But I think that SCOTUS has done at least as much harm as good over the years, which to me is fairly unsurprising considering how much power is being given to a very small group of people.
Soooooo....who gets the final say then?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, maybe if you could explain what you mean by different...?
For example, (to draw again on my Church) many Catholics (fewer these days)) think of priests as special - as having some quality that ordinary men don't have. Something that makes them better.* Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that the were normal men who had some ordinary advantages in intelligence, education and so forth?
* This belief did not make protection children from predators any easier.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
quote:Just to poke this bear of an argument one more time, I will say to Lyrhawn: I have a significant problem with the Supreme Court as arbiters of the Constitution. I understand that, practically speaking, people argue about what the Constitution means, so I understand why things developed the way they did. But I think that SCOTUS has done at least as much harm as good over the years, which to me is fairly unsurprising considering how much power is being given to a very small group of people.
Soooooo....who gets the final say then?
I don't have a good answer for you, man. Yeah, I'm not very happy with how much power they have, and how their very loose interpretations of text allow for what I see as all sorts of shenanigans. But I don't advocate dismantling SCOTUS or any other radical solution I've ever seen proposed. I guess I'm just a grumpy, sideline curmudgeon on this issue, only able to bitch about what I see as wrong without proposing a viable solution.
Edit: I really should just always quote who I respond to, as it takes me so long to type a response that someone ninjas their way in between 9 out of 10 times.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think they've been highly problematic in the past. The history of SCOTUS is fascinating. Sometimes they're a trailing body, in that they're the last ones to get on board with the changing social mores of society, and sometimes they're on the leading edge, dragging the rest of the country kicking and screaming along with them.
The legal history of civil rights in this country, especially as pertains to race, is a see-saw of opinions as to what the Constitution means.
When they don't agree with me, I think they're destructive. When they do agree with me, I think they're a saving grace. Funny how that works.
I think once you stop and think that there's simply no solution that will make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time, you realize this is the best thing we can do. In 1800, Congress thought they had the final word, which strikes me as the worst idea possible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, maybe if you could explain what you mean by different...?
For example, (to draw again on my Church) many Catholics (fewer these days)) think of priests as special - as having some quality that ordinary men don't have. Something that makes them better.* Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that the were normal men who had some ordinary advantages in intelligence, education and so forth?
* This belief did not make protection children from predators any easier.
Ah, wow, okay!
So, I am about as non-spiritual/mystical/religious as it is possible to be. I was barely even brought up religious (my parents are devout Tibetan Buddhists but they were also pretty hands-off), and was completely atheist by the time I reached adolescence. So this interpretation of my words honestly didn't even occur to me. Sorry to use phrases that had a loaded meaning.
I think in the context you mean, they are normal men who accomplished a form of greatness that is essentially within everyone's grasp. The reason I think they are extraordinary/special/what-have-you is because so few people actually manage to realize this potential. So, when someone does, that makes them exceptional. That's pretty much it.
Lyrhawn: Yeah I largely agree with you re: SCOTUS. If a group that is supposed to be nonpartisan/impartial pisses off each side roughly 50% of the time, they're probably doing an okay job. Still, man, they sure do piss me off sometimes.
And I stand by what I said about truth and rightness not being beholden to the courts. The fact that the courts didn't agree with Douglass did not make him wrong, in my opinion.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Actually, my single biggest problem with Awlaki's death was that he wasn't tried in absentia.
Uh, mine too. I thought that's what we were arguing about.
quote:In any event, I'd be fine with offing him even if that was provably all he'd done. Sorry, if you're going to operate internationally in an effort-successful or really damaging in many cases-to destroy or weaken our government or those of our allies, to help incite civil wars, to be an effective recruitment tool for those who will do so, we might just kill you, if we can. And won't have violated any sort of decency in doing so.
Do you at least agree that we will have violated the US Constitution by doing so?
quote:-I hardly think you'd support vastly amping up special forces, intelligence services, cooperation with local (often pretty nasty) governments, etc. etc. in order to fight terrorism, would you?
I actually think that's exactly what we should do!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Now he has to give orders?
I was using "give orders" as short for exhorting immediate violence.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Addendum: I was thinking about this on the drive home, and the more I think about it the more eager I am to hear your response, Sam. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a study on this topic that wouldn't, in essence, boil down to an aggregate of anecdotes or a summary of trends and correlations. So I'm curious to see what I'm missing.
Or is it just that, yes, that is the only way to do it, and studies show that the anecdotes and correlations are pretty much what you'd expect geographically? (Leftist on the coasts, right wing in the south, etc.)
The most important thing to come away from this is to note that we're now in proving-negatives land. Assuming no such sufficient study or real data exists, what does that say of those who have made the case that there's a "strong leftist bias" in schools? Pretty much exactly as I stated.
It is not the only way to do it, though, and there have been concerted methodological systems designed to root out bias and the undue politification of classrooms by teachers and communities. Not too long ago, they quashed out testing and student analysis systems which rated students in their 'attentivity' to environmental affairs in a way which graded them as 'deficient' if they weren't essentially answering towards a politically environmentalist narrative. Given the structure of our school systems and the wide (and institutionally shitty) gulf of permissions given to the states to set their own educational standards, the main systemic and identifiable systems of bias are through boards and the general environment of political pressure in that area. The largest systemic bias is preserved in the american south. You can guess which way it goes. The primary victims are usually history (students come out with a severely insufficient view of world history, with obvious distortions) and the sciences, especially biology.
The largest factor seems to be to what degree a state has institutionalized the politicization of school curriculum to pursue an obvious agenda. The better states limit the damage a politicized board or a rogue teacher can do. The worse states give them plenty of room to go hog-wild.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document.
Huh. I'd really love to dissect how and from what places someone gets this view of the constitution, since the opposite is true: it was a pro-slavery document, with the right to own people built very straightforwardly into it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, okay. Often these days, you hear the founding fathers spoken of - invoked even - by conservatives as if they could do no wrong. As if they were demi-gods blessed with some special insight that we could not obtain. This is the image that those TN law-makers seem to be trying to protect. The. Constitution is an extraordinary blueprint for government, wrought by flawed men (as all men are flawed) filled with compromise and the best solutions available at the time. It is not a sacred document brought down from the mountain top.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also,
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics.
This is the most sellout mentality possible. It does nothing more than pretty much clarify for the class that you are so dogmatically wrapped up in those ideas that you are mentally uninterested in challenging them. So, what to do about the thorny dissonance of most people thinking he's nuts? Apparently, the solution is to do what is easiest to not have to think about why they are so frequently disagreed with.
And here I was wondering how the forum was going to make do without a new Lisa. >:[
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, be nice.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Addendum: I was thinking about this on the drive home, and the more I think about it the more eager I am to hear your response, Sam. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a study on this topic that wouldn't, in essence, boil down to an aggregate of anecdotes or a summary of trends and correlations. So I'm curious to see what I'm missing.
Or is it just that, yes, that is the only way to do it, and studies show that the anecdotes and correlations are pretty much what you'd expect geographically? (Leftist on the coasts, right wing in the south, etc.)
The most important thing to come away from this is to note that we're now in proving-negatives land. Assuming no such sufficient study or real data exists, what does that say of those who have made the case that there's a "strong leftist bias" in schools? Pretty much exactly as I stated.
Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It is not the only way to do it, though, and there have been concerted methodological systems designed to root out bias and the undue politification of classrooms by teachers and communities. Not too long ago, they quashed out testing and student analysis systems which rated students in their 'attentivity' to environmental affairs in a way which graded them as 'deficient' if they weren't essentially answering towards a politically environmentalist narrative. Given the structure of our school systems and the wide (and institutionally shitty) gulf of permissions given to the states to set their own educational standards, the main systemic and identifiable systems of bias are through boards and the general environment of political pressure in that area. The largest systemic bias is preserved in the american south. You can guess which way it goes. The primary victims are usually history (students come out with a severely insufficient view of world history, with obvious distortions) and the sciences, especially biology.
The largest factor seems to be to what degree a state has institutionalized the politicization of school curriculum to pursue an obvious agenda. The better states limit the damage a politicized board or a rogue teacher can do. The worse states give them plenty of room to go hog-wild.
So, I have no difficulty believing that a right-wing bias in curriculum could cause problems in biology (evolution, I assume?) and world history. But I'm curious about these attempts you're alluding to.
One topic in particular sprang to mind, and a few google searches did not yield satisfactory data. Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common. However this is purely based on my anecdotal data (basically polling people I know). In my google search I found out that in 2008 there was a big push to get it used in middle schools and high schools, but I haven't found how successful that was. Do you know? Or is this sort of question not an appropriate way to root out biases?
And, tangentially I suppose, do you consider that book an example of a leftist revisionist history, or do you think it's a reasonable objective analysis of history that ought to be taught in history classes?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document.
Huh. I'd really love to dissect how and from what places someone gets this view of the constitution, since the opposite is true: it was a pro-slavery document, with the right to own people built very straightforwardly into it.
Wow. Dissect, huh? Dissect away, I guess. Start with Douglass, but feel free to speculate on my education after you eviscerate him. Also please direct me to precisely where the right to own people is shown so straightforwardly.
Edited because I suck at UBB, apparently
[ January 25, 2012, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, have you read A People's History? What do you think they got wrong?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, be nice.
>:[
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, have you read A People's History? What do you think they got wrong?
I read it about 12 years ago, so I can't really give you a blow-by-blow of everything that I think is wrong with it. Sorry.
If it's truly important to you to have a more specific answer I can try to find a copy and re-read it, or refresh my memory by reading excerpts or something. But I'll admit the prospect sounds a little tiring.
Barring that, I certainly remember it well enough to think that it's overall a horrible hack-job of a revisionist history, so...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, be nice.
>:[
Oh man something about that particular emoticon strikes me as adorable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
Statements such as "there is a strong leftist bias in our schools" come with a burden of proof that lies on those who are claiming that this bias exists and can be measured. That it exists stronger relative to examples of other biases in schools. Without any coherent demonstration of this, the statement is empty air. (well, not entirely empty air: as I described, it's at least helpful in indicating the biases of the claimant)
quote:Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common.
But you have no actual data on which to test your impression that it is common, right? No knowledge that it has become district or state level curriculum anywhere? As just a 'hey look at this' impression in its own right, what do you think the odds are that its school readership matches up to or exceeds, as an individual example, the school readership of texas' conservative-adjusted statewide curriculum?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
Statements such as "there is a strong leftist bias in our schools" come with a burden of proof that lies on those who are claiming that this bias exists and can be measured. That it exists stronger relative to examples of other biases in schools. Without any coherent demonstration of this, the statement is empty air. (well, not entirely empty air: as I described, it's at least helpful in indicating the biases of the claimant)
Oh okay, I see what you mean. Right, if I were doing that, you'd be correct.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common.
But you have no actual data on which to test your impression that it is common, right? No knowledge that it has become district or state level curriculum anywhere? As just a 'hey look at this' impression in its own right, what do you think the odds are that its school readership matches up to or exceeds, as an individual example, the school readership of texas' conservative-adjusted statewide curriculum?
Umm, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you didn't hack out that one piece of my statement to intentionally misrepresent me.
But... to reiterate what I said above, I'm not asserting that this is the case. I was actually, genuinely, honestly asking if you knew. I explicitly stated I do not yet have any data to test this on, so I wish you wouldn't act like you're calling me out on not having said data.
I was asking if you knew because I've been digging a bit online, and haven't found any data, and this seems to be something you know a lot about. I thought maybe you'd have some idea of a good place to go to see overall assessments of curricula.
As for how it compares to Texas, well, I don't know, that's my whole point. And regardless, the terrible Texas initiatives were much like this Tennessee thing: a reaction to a perceived bias going the other way. And to cut you off early: I don't dispute that even if such a bias exists they went about the solution completely wrong. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Oh okay, I see what you mean. Right, if I were doing that, you'd be correct.
You have made the claim, though. And been sold on fighting this narrative. And you come out in others fighting this narrative. It's the reason for the questions. You are (or were at least earlier in this thread) sold on the notion that there is not just a leftist bent in schools, but an intense leftist narrative, that it permeates most schools, and you described a clear and purposeful propagandist intent and effort on its part. This is extremely strong language. You have been sold on a narrative of a narrative, data (or lack of thereof) notwithstanding.
quote:But... to reiterate what I said above, I'm not asserting that this is the case.
I know. I'm using it as an example that you are bringing up as illustration — not 'look! look! see what you are doing??' — of when an impression arises in lieu of anything that can demonstrate the fact. Assuming not much real information about this scary leftist book's 'permeation' exists (not like I can find any myself), I can't say how one could argue for its widespread inclusion as a school resource. I can find pretty general data on McGraw Hill, Pearson, Harcourt, Houghton Mifflin, Core Knowledge, and other widely adopted history textbooks (mostly by trawling EBSCO) but nothing about district adoption or state adoption of this book. Even if it turns out to be demonstrably as rare as this lack of mention suggests, I can only be sure that the book has been and will continue to be used as a sure sign of widespread school leftism by many.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You almost have to admire their determination in the face of being so completely wrong.
In other news, Newt has basically pulled even with Romney in national polls, and with Florida looming (after an especially contentious back and forth last Monday), this thing looks more and more like a two-man race. It remains to be seen at what point Santorum realizes he's done and actually drops out. Maybe after Florida when he realizes that he can't win the big states or the conservative states, the two things he claims makes him most electable. I don't even know how he's hanging in with Florida while having almost no money or organization, but I think he'd be wise to drop out then. I expect Paul to stay in for months. I wonder where Santorum's not inconsiderable 10%+ flows after he drops out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'merkin evangelicals, forced to choose between an adulterer and a mormon. writes itself
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Paul will stay in the race until after the National Convention. Until that time, his supporters will insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he will win the nomination and the election. After the convention, they will be convinced he lost because of an establishment conspiracy. They will insist he run as an independent or on a third party ticket. I think that's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
The only real question is whether Paul will choose to relent and run as an independent this time around.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, have you read A People's History? What do you think they got wrong?
I read it about 12 years ago, so I can't really give you a blow-by-blow of everything that I think is wrong with it. Sorry.
If it's truly important to you to have a more specific answer I can try to find a copy and re-read it, or refresh my memory by reading excerpts or something. But I'll admit the prospect sounds a little tiring.
Barring that, I certainly remember it well enough to think that it's overall a horrible hack-job of a revisionist history, so...
I don't think re-reading is necessary. I am not sure, though, what you mean by "hack job" or "revisionist history". Did you find it inaccurate? Or merely one-sided? I could see one-sided but, as our teaching of history has been one-sided for generations, I think it is important to see the other side. I think that it is a valuable book and should be used in conjunction with more traditional history texts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics.
No one actually understands economics. At its roots, economic theories are all theories about human behavior and there is no solid science for predicting how human's will behave. It's true that macro-economic theories are predicting the average behavior of groups, which is much easier than predicting the behavior of individuals, but there is still no proven reliable underlying principles to this science.
This is one area in which there truly is nothing approaching a consensus of experts in the field. There are at least a dozen different scholarly schools of economic thought. Economic schools differ both on the principals they use to model economies and in what they see as desirable economic outcomes. Within what is generally considered to be the mainstream of economics there is considerable disagreement about the the amount and kind of government economic regulation that is economically beneficial with some economist favoring Keynesian style government intervention and other favoring freer markets.
No economic theory can be fully supported with solid data because no economic theory has been truly tested in a proper controlled experiment. Even if real controlled economic experiments were possible, it wouldn't be ethical to take the risk. Because real world economies aren't controlled experiments, the data is always ambiguous. When deregulation contributes to a market failure, those who favor regulation can claim support for their theories, but since deregulation is never the only factor that changed, those who oppose regulation can dispute the conclusion. Political decisions are almost always a compromise between different sides, so what governments do is never quite what any economist would advise. That means that when government intervention fails, it's impossible to tell whether its because a particular economic theory was wrong or because the theory was not actually followed.
Ron Paul's economic theories fall on the very fringes of what can be considered main stream today. Ideas that are far more centrist than his have been heavily criticized by many leading economists. From my point of view, the biggest problem with Ron Paul's economic plan is that it is driven by ideology rather than data and sound models. Libertarians favor the free market primarily because it is consistent with their goal of minimizing government as a whole. All the data gets filtered through that lens making any objective assessment impossible.
Because no one really understands economics, any radical change in economic policy is going to be high risk. No one really knows exactly what would happen if we return to the Gold Standard for example. It's possible it could turn out good in the long wrong, but it could also be an unmitigated disaster.
The Precautionary Principal tells us that when there is no consensus among experts on whether a proposed action will cause harm, those who support the action have the burden of proving that the harm will NOT occur. This is something Ron Paul can not do.
[ January 25, 2012, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There is an excellent Thread over at Something Awful about economics and the differences between "Keynes" (mainstream) and the Austrian School (non mainstream but the media/blogosphere places asa direct opposition to Keynes).
I believe that there actually is a fair degree of empirical data to support mainstream economic thought but I would have to reread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul will stay in the race until after the National Convention. Until that time, his supporters will insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he will win the nomination and the election. After the convention, they will be convinced he lost because of an establishment conspiracy. They will insist he run as an independent or on a third party ticket. I think that's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
The only real question is whether Paul will choose to relent and run as an independent this time around.
I think you're exactly right.
I think in the end though, he'll be convinced not to run. I'm constantly on the fence over whether or not Paul is actually buying into his own hype, or realizes just how deluded his own fan base is. Sometimes he really seems to understand his own limitations, other times, when he says crap along the lines of 'I had no idea so many young people were interested in ending the Federal Reserve' just proves to me that he still doesn't understand the forces behind his popularity.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There is an excellent Thread over at Something Awful about economics and the differences between "Keynes" (mainstream) and the Austrian School (non mainstream but the media/blogosphere places asa direct opposition to Keynes).
I believe that there actually is a fair degree of empirical data to support mainstream economic thought but I would have to reread.
Hmmm, to be accurate, current mainstream economic theories are neither Keynesian nor Austrian School. Both of those schools have had a strong influence on mainstream economic theories, but macro-economics has changed a great deal in the last half century and is no longer accurately described by either of those schools.
My point was, that even within the mainstream there are major controversies about principles and methodology. There is no consensus about the benefits or hazards of different types and levels of government intervention or the value of the free market. Some mainstream economists are far more favorable to Austrian school like laissez faire ideals while others lean much more towards Keynesian like approaches.
The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities. And the problem isn't that mainstream economics does not rely on emperical data, its that the emperical data does not lend itself to one unambiguous interpretation -- it fits a variety of very different models roughly equally.
I'm certainly no expert in any macro-economic model, but I have done enough systems modelling to know the kind of features that result in unstable systems. Market systems have so many destabilizing features (like long lag times, non-linear responses, and positive feed back loops) that market volatility ought to be expected in the absence of external regulation.
I know that's a very superficial analysis and if someone with more economic expertise can explain what I'm missing that would dramatically change the system dynamics, I'd be happy to listen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, Keynesian concepts are kind of like proto-modern-economics. Economic theory and expanded business models in a world of interconnected trading everywhere all the time tested his stuff and found it lacking, and slowly morphed it into the current model.
The difference between the two is that keynes at least had a framework worth working on. Austrian economics has been defined repeatedly in living memory by the fact that it is fighting against its own obsolescence and abandonment by the working economic models of the world at large, which has either followed or was precipitated by its abandonment en masse by the vast majority of economic theorists. Like, ... per capita theorist. Or something.
Austrian economics is told to be a reasonably unsound theory. I have had economists on both sides of the american spectrum describe it as something that just had too many flaws and contraindications in general economic practice to have ever survived robustly (leaving it today as sort of an insular, dogmatic, circled-wagons entity), and of course on Something Awful they had scores of examples. I dunno. I guess just read SA.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ah. Yes. Informative as usual.
quote:Marx should be included in a class about the history of economics and every (at least macro-)economist should know what his main arguments were. His theory about capitalism actually influenced economic thought right up to Keynes. If anything, arguments about accumulation of capital causing the crisis are still being uttered and everyone should at least engage with the idea intellectually even if it seems to be wrong.
That being said, let's not pretend Marx's appeal had anything to do with the rigidity of his economic thought or that he is particularly useful in a contemporary context. He dressed up his economics as a morality play and his popularity mostly resided on his resonating message of liberation from 19th century work hell and the fact that his work is a blend of economics, pol. sci and sociology written in an eloquent way that makes you want to correct those evils at once. The influence of Marx has more to do with his messianic message rather than how rigid and correct his analysis was (it wasn't at all and to be honest it couldn't have been as crucial parts of mathematics that economists use today weren't all that well known at that point). Marx is/was popular because people want to believe that a system like the socialism he described is feasible in today's society.
quote: I think the simple distinction is this:
Keynesian economics is focused on soft concepts like demand as observed phenomenon. Keynesians talk about managing the economy, ultimately being a matter of managing the aggregated psychology of individuals to generally spend money, employ people, create new businesses etc.
Austrian economics is focused on metrics. Through metrics, models can be constructed that describe an ideal economy, and in particular how this ideal economy should theoretically self-regulate to maximise the aforementioned metrics. Austrian economists then observe, quite rightly, that over-regulation from the Keynesian perspective comes with its own set of costs. Austrian economists then allow themselves to be co-opted by politicians and advocate who believe that (a) these metrics are all that matters, and (b) therefore this market self-regulation should be the only force in the economy.
The fundamental problems with the austrians is that everything is built up from this first principles way, without actually acknowledging how important it is in the real world, and the fact that if you corner them, anyone sane will admit there are certain huge holes in their models of how markets ought to behave.
EDIT:
No, no, rational actors goes a lot further than that. Rational actor theory says essentially that people always act on all the information they have to maximise their expected benefit to themselves, where the expected benefit is some function that obeys certain rules, (e.g. earning more money is always better, etc etc) and that essentially all economic decisions are made that way.
quote:Austrians are a bit of a Poe's Law problem. It's almost impossible to make a caricature of them that is more extreme than what most of them are really like. But really, the important thing to note is that Austrians are fringe philosophy while Keynesians are the mainstream. However, that is referring to academia. There is almost an entirely separate discipline of business/political economists who you'll often find talked about on the net, and they distort the conversation.
For instance, many "internet trained" economics wonks, such as message board posters, will talk about things like Supply Side economics(Trickle-Down/Reaganomics) and the Laffer Curve as if they are real things that most economists respect, rather than something to get you laughed out of your department. That really distorts the conversation. There are a couple of serious academic economists on this board, and you can identify them by their attempts to post densely worded poo poo. However, I don't think they'll disagree with me that Keynesian macroeconomics is essentially mainstream. But to hear from conservative pundit economists, anyone who buys into Keynes is a crazy liberal spendaholic.
quote: I don't have the time to give more than the Cliff Notes version, I'm sure others can fill you in. They're all connected.:
The Laffer Curve: It is a graph without supporting data. The idea is that you graph tax rate and government revenu, and it shapes into an upside down U with single apex. This is silly because generally you design a line to fit the data, and it makes a number of baseless assumptions such as revenue being zero at both extremes(Zero and 100% taxation), that theres a single apex, or that the graph is even a curve. Basically it's complete and utter crap designed to forward an argument of lower taxation, and it's a good litmus test of whether someone knows anything about Economics. If they think it's a A Real Thing with a known shape, they are a moron, ignore them.
Say's Law: The idea that supply creates it's own demand. If that sounds like it doesn't make any sense, you're right, it doesn't. Even Say admitted later in his life that he was wrong, something is ignored by almost everyone who ever mentions it. It's also not a Law, because economics doesn't really have "Laws". That's just an attempt to make the profession sound more like physics than sociology. It is used to justify supply side economics, since giving the rich more money makes no sense if you know anything about diminishing marginal utility(you can only spend so much).
Supply side economics: The idea that you should give the rich tax cuts because it will pay for itself, thanks to the the rich having more money and apparently spending it. The other two points are used to support this, so it's already on a shakey foundation. It doesn't work because you can only spend so much. It ends up just concentrating wealth at the top. There is zero evidence that it works whatsoever and basically it hangs around because it benefits rich people and they can buy political representation. No respectable academic economics department in the country seriously advocates it, it is purely a theory supported by pundits and politicians. Many internet economists refuse to believe it's not basically a joke. due to that disconnect, but it really is.
quote:it's a mistake to consider the two as opposing but equally important ideologies. Keynsian is basically mainstream economics, and Austrians are basically a joke. The political debates are just to what extent we apply Keynsianism, nobody really argues that it works unless they're being disingenuous or really dumb.
That forum is aptly named! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yet another debate tonight, this time in Florida, where the Gingrich/Romney Catfight Roadshow seems likely to continue, with some carping from Santorum and a largely ignored Ron Paul as side dishes. It's funny, I thought with fewer candidates they'd actually get debates where the moderators could, you know, ask them genuine questions and get some good answers out of them. Instead it's just concentrated the vitriol into much more easily coopted and focused zones of control. It's actually remarkable how easy it is for the Media to get Romney and Gingrich to dance to their tune, and the Media has so much control over the process that both of them risk losing if they refuse to cooperate.
The bizarre part is that people think that's because the media is liberal, when in reality its because the media is a profit-driven corporation, with the GOP primary being the only bloodsport in town.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Easy Quoting Others Time: Romney made a good point - Gingrich is going from state to state, promising everything that that state ever wanted ("Hey Florida, how about a MOON BASE!!!!!") while simultaneously running on a ticket that's all about cutting spending / liberals spending too much.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
moon base thing isn't a joke either
quote:Gingrich was asked about the pledge that he made to voters on Florida’s Space Coast on Wednesday, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon,” he said. Gingrich also was asked about his idea of granting U.S. statehood to an American lunar colony.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am 100% behind letting Newt Gingrich be commander in chief of said moon base.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
o_O
I'd ask how are guys like him considered viable presidential candidates, but then I think of our current president...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, if we'll elect a kenyan muslim, we'll elect anyone!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Gingrich also was asked about his idea of granting U.S. statehood to an American lunar colony.
Wouldn't that be nice? Then they could have a war with the Chinese province in the next crater.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, if we'll elect a kenyan muslim, we'll elect anyone!
Umm,Since Corwin is French, I pretty sure was talking about Nicolas Sarkozy not Barack Obama.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gently, sam was reminded that countries other than the united states exist. At first, he laughs. When he realizes it is not a joke, his smile disappears. "Are they having their republican primary too?" he asks. "What do you mean, they don't all speak american? How does that work?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
People should ask Newt if he supports Puerto Rican statehood before lunar statehood. Puerto Rico is going to vote on a change of status plebiscite later this year, and it's expected to win a majority vote for statehood for the firs time, after which the GOP is likely going to block it.
On the whole though...I'll admit to being pleased with a president who is excited about space travel. I'd say he was pandering to Florida, but Newt has been starry eyed for decades on NASA. We don't have a ton of extra money right now, but a little goes long way at NASA. Even restoring funding levels from years ago could make Mars in a decade possible.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities.
Every field has ongoing academic dialog. That does not mean every viewpoint in the discipline is on equal footing. I used to use that line against climate change scientists.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, if we'll elect a kenyan muslim, we'll elect anyone!
Umm,Since Corwin is French, I pretty sure was talking about Nicolas Sarkozy not Barack Obama.
We need little flags by everyone's names.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities.
Every field has ongoing academic dialog. That does not mean every viewpoint in the discipline is on equal footing. I used to use that line against climate change scientists.
I did not mean to say otherwise. Just as the existence of controversy does not make every viewpoint in the discipline on equal footing, the fact that all disciplines have some controversy does not make all disciplines equally controversial. Economics happens to be a very controversial field. If the controversies in climate science were the size of a basketball, the controversies in Economics would be the size of the moon.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, I would watch the hell out of a movie in which Nick Sarkozy and Newt Gingrich race to establish a moon colony.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
How exactly does one go about watching the hell out of a movie?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How exactly does one go about watching the hell out of a movie?
Have you ever seen or read A Clockwork Orange?
Not for the squeemish. Link.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes I've seen A Clockwork Orange. I wish I had not. If someone could watch the hell out of the movie, they'd be doing the world a great service.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
To challenge people's thinking that Ron Paul is nuts, explain economic thinking in detail.
Economic knowledge is gained from apodictic a priori truths because experiment is virtually impossible since variables can't be isolated.
The precautionary principle referred to by the previous poster assumes that inaction results in less harm. With no evidence of this, it cannot be reasonably asserted that inaction is the best course of action. Inaction could be just as harmful or more harmful than action.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Here are some resources for the curious. "Choice in Currency" is an essay and should be a short read. The last one is a book. They detail some of the theory that I'm sure Ron Paul's ideas are based on. They make the case that competitive banking and competing currencies mitigate inflation.
Dude, those are like... 100 years old and not relevent to todays economies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, while I do think his economic theories are pretty wacky, they aren't what make him most unappealing to me as a candidate. His foreign policy, now, that would make it impossible for me to support him even if I drank his economic Kool-Aid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really? His foreign policy is the sanest thing going for him.
I'm not saying I support a return to total isolationism, but his opposition to the wars, his support for normalizing relations with Cuba and a few other policies are pretty damn solid, and a hell of a lot better than anything else the GOP has. Better than what a lot of Dems have too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except for the letting Iran having nukes thing, kinda iffy that. Even I feel the United States has a stake and a constructive role in the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Economic knowledge is gained from apodictic a priori truths because experiment is virtually impossible since variables can't be isolated.
Imagine you were explaining this to someone who is taking their absolute first day in their first economics class. How would you frame this economic hypothesis?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except for the letting Iran having nukes thing, kinda iffy that. Even I feel the United States has a stake and a constructive role in the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
If only your friends in China and Russia felt the same way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't intending to hold Paul up to the GOP and Democrat general platforms there, Lyrhawn. And while I do like aspects of his foreign policy, the overall tint of isolationism is fatal to my potential support.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except for the letting Iran having nukes thing, kinda iffy that. Even I feel the United States has a stake and a constructive role in the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
If only your friends in China and Russia felt the same way.
You know that is profoundly ignorant right? Since y'know, China and Russia have been fairly instrumental to the Six Party Talks with North Korea, and Russia has been incredibly important in securing and reducing nuclear proliferation, Barack Obama as a Senator I believe helped negotiate a treaty or something if I remember correctly while in Russia.
China is also I believe the only USNC member with a no first use policy and sticks to a policy of minimal deterrence.
If you are referring to any issues with Iran, well, Iran isn't in violation of either the NPT or the IAEA they do have a right according to what they signed to domestically enrich stuff so it is natural for their to be some reluctance by other USNC members until theres more conclusive proof since y'know, the US has been wrong before.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you are referring to any issues with Iran, well, Iran isn't in violation of either the NPT or the IAEA they do have a right according to what they signed to domestically enrich stuff so it is natural for their to be some reluctance by other USNC members until theres more conclusive proof since y'know, the US has been wrong before.
Dude, you just admitted Iran was going for nukes, but bring China and Russia into the discussion and suddenly it's 'Whoa whoa whoa! Easy on Iran, they have a right to...'
Your knee-jerk partisanship for those two nations is pretty well-known around here, but I wouldn't have expected such a striking demonstration of it.
I didn't admit to Iran going for nukes, I said Ron Paul would let them have nukes do not put words in my mouth.
Again, appeal to ad hominem, what I have defended or not defended before in which you have zero ability to substantiate has no bearing here.
There are at least two very long running discussions over at SA that have more or less discredited the majority of arguments stating Iran is in violation of the NPT, its very conclusive that the US media has very much exaggerated Iranian intentions and actions to beyond fictional.
quote: "The enforcement of Article III of the NPT obligations is carried out through the IAEA's monitoring and verification that is designed to ensure that declared nuclear facilities are operated according to safeguard agreement with Iran, which Iran signed with the IAEA in 1974. In the past four years that Iran's nuclear programme has been under close investigation by the IAEA, the Director General of the IAEA, as early as November 2003 reported to the IAEA Board of Governors that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons programme." ... Although Iran has been found in non-compliance with some aspects of its IAEA safeguards obligations, Iran has not been in breach of its obligations under the terms of the NPT."
[ January 29, 2012, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I didn't admit to Iran going for nukes, I said Ron Paul would let them have nukes do not put words in my mouth.
I agree with this. The following position fits with what Blayne said in previous posts: Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, but Ron Paul has said that if they do have a weapons program, there's nothing wrong with that; and on that count, Paul is wrong.
quote: There are at least two very long running discussions over at SA that have more or less discredited the majority of arguments stating Iran is in violation of the NPT, its very conclusive that the US media has very much exaggerated Iranian intentions and actions to beyond fictional.
While it's certainly clear that Iran hasn't violated NPT, arms control experts are also justifiably convinced that they plan to go as far as possible toward developing the capability to produce weapons without violating the letter of the treaty. I think that, too, is something the international community should try to prevent, and Russia and China have indeed obstructed the process.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Ohh, shut my mouth. What's one of your phrases? 'Make me, Internet tough guy.' Seriously, Blayne, this particular disagreement aside, saying 'shut your mouth' in this context makes you look like a tantruming adolescent angry on the Internet.
Now, that said, I did give you some facts-you ignored them. As recently as two months ago, the IAEA has reported some very troubling things about Iran's nuclear program, and I'm not talking about American media coverage but the IAEA itself. Such as that weapons-specific activities have been going on until quite recently, and may even be continuing. Just for starters.
Iran's position is effectively that the IAEA is an American stooge, and it's interesting to see that that is your stance as well, apparently. Iran *doesn't* say 'The IAEA didn't say that!' it days 'Dont listen to them, they're American bought!'
So let's dispense with this nonsense that the IAEA is sanguine about Iran's nuclear program-even Iran itself admits that the IAEA has serious concerns with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, to be clear, the statement was not 'Iran is trying for nukes, and Ron Paul is fine with that' but rather 'Should Iran someday attempt and obtain nukes, Paul wouldn't try to stop it'?
If the latter is what was meant, fine, that is indeed one way and perhaps the first way that statement should've been read. My mistake. I don't think I really had to reach for it, though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I accept your apology and will revise my post.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, if we'll elect a kenyan muslim, we'll elect anyone!
Umm,Since Corwin is French, I pretty sure was talking about Nicolas Sarkozy not Barack Obama.
Actually I'm Romanian, but I lived in France for 11 years before coming back to Romania. And our president (for which I proudly voted in 2004 ) is Traian Basescu, in case anyone was wondering. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry Corwin. I remembered you living in France from years ago. I never realized you were actually Romanian.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
No problem.
I didn't even realize that Samp's comment was directly answering the "our current president" part of mine until you posted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:During a stop in Tampa, FL earlier this week, Romney was seen whipping a crowd of thousands into a delirious frenzy with his beloved, decade-old talking points about how he is not a career politician. The candidate reportedly inspired optimism and confidence by explaining he "never actually supported an individual mandate for health insurance at the federal level," a battle cry that prompted the audience to chant his name for five straight minutes.
In a moment his supporters called "genuine" and "down-to-earth," Romney then told the crowd that he, too, is currently unemployed and truly understands the fear of being laid off.
"It's amazing to hear your deepest convictions articulated so poignantly by a politician," said out-of-work Denver resident Austin Matthews, 36, admitting he had never before encountered a candidate—or any human being, for that matter—who had connected with him on such a basic emotional level. "He comes right out and says that any acknowledgment of income inequality in the United States is driven solely by bitterness and envy from the lower classes and shouldn't even be discussed publicly. It's like he's tapped directly into the soul of everyday Americans."
quote:RICHMOND, IN—Self-proclaimed strict constitutionalist and freethinker Rick Crawford told reporters Monday he is supporting Ron Paul in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries because of the way the candidate looks people directly in the eye, doesn't mince words, and tells it like it will never, ever be in a million years. "Ron cuts right through the fat and doesn't sugarcoat anything when he talks about policies that would be absolutely impossible to implement, like abolishing the federal income tax, eliminating Medicare, or putting the nation's currency back on the gold standard," Crawford said as he pounded a hand-painted "Ron Paul 2012" sign in his front lawn. "He's not afraid to give Americans no-nonsense straight talk about his completely delusional fantasy world. That's why I'm part of the highly unlikely Ron Paul revolution." Sources close to Crawford's family said his wife supports Mitt Romney because of the way he tells it like people want to hear it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney in real news:
It's a bad sound bite, but only out of context. I'm sure it will be used against him anyway, of course.
I would like to say that, but the bite is not improved very well by context, given how our "safety net" (or our threadbare, diminutive attempt at one) is the last thing we can reasonably use to wave away concern for the poor, or about how something like fifteen percent of our families can't feed their children.
When you analyze his statements, he's saying he's really not concerned about the poor, he's concerned about the middle class, because they're the ones really struggling in the comparison. Living off of food stamps obviously isn't any kind of struggle, I guess.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sam, I think that there is a difference between being deliberately callous about the poor and being obliviously callous about the poor. The statement out of context characterizes him as the first but it is really only evidence for the second.
He may well be both, of course.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As apposed to Obama, I care so much for the poor I'm going to make sure there are more people on food stamps so I can show my care for even more people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I think his clarifications make things even worse. 95% of America is middle class according to Romney? Then again, Romney said HE was middle class a few months ago. Really goes to show how useless that term has become.
And, like Sam said, being on food stamps or having to use the safety net DOESN'T imply a struggle to get by? Man, talk about out of touch. I see what he's trying to do, but every time he tries to sympathize with the plight of Americans, he comes across as more and more out of touch with what they're really going through.
The man simply can't connect.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being on food stamps as opposed to what, Occasional? Not eating?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There is this belief among many Americans (well, among ones I have talked to) that living off welfare and food stamps is quite glamorous. You just sit around having fun all day and get money. The fact that even with that money, you are still living in poverty (just no starving) is frequently ignored.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sam, I think that there is a difference between being deliberately callous about the poor and being obliviously callous about the poor. The statement out of context characterizes him as the first but it is really only evidence for the second.
I, in fact, believe very much so that the context is evidence of the second, and I do think him to be the second. Since that's not an improvement and makes him out to be a gorm on the issue, it's exactly as I said: adding the context doesn't help him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As apposed to Obama, I care so much for the poor I'm going to make sure there are more people on food stamps so I can show my care for even more people.
Yeah, uh. What?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sam, I think that there is a difference between being deliberately callous about the poor and being obliviously callous about the poor. The statement out of context characterizes him as the first but it is really only evidence for the second.
I, in fact, believe very much so that the context is evidence of the second, and I do think him to be the second. Since that's not an improvement and makes him out to be a gorm on the issue, it's exactly as I said: adding the context doesn't help him.
It might for those people who are judging on emotions. For me being cluelessely callous is worse; for many being deliberatly heartless is worse.
ETA: Context doesn't help him with us, but we are not the likely targets.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Romney's complete CNN statement:
quote:I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
I think there's a point at which additional focus on the very poor is overall detrimental to society. I don't know that we're currently in that situation; I tend to think not. But I think the question of whether it's better to focus time, energy and resources on improving the quality of life for the very few with incomes less than $15,000 or on the significantly larger segment with incomes between $15,000 and $100,000 is at least a valid one to ask.
<edit>Also, note the "if it needs repair, I'll fix it." You might project a disagreement with Romney over to what degree the safety net needs fixing, but asserting that he doesn't care about or get that poor people need assistance based on this quote is, while understandable, I think fairly unjustifiable on the face.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You do get that the poor are part of society, right?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You do get that the poor are part of society, right?
Yeah.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SO what is detrimental to the most vulnerable is also detrimental to "society" - even more so as they are more in need of our "focus".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SO what is detrimental to the most vulnerable is also detrimental to "society" - even more so as they are more in need of our "focus".
Not necessarily. It depends on how you measure social welfare. If I could improve the outcome for the poorest, most vulnerable member of society by a little but as a result decreased the welfare of all other members of society by a lot, I would consider that to be overall detrimental to society.
<edit>There's also an interesting question of whether individual welfare (let alone societal) increases monotonically with "focus", but that's maybe a separate discussion.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure how that would work. It takes a great deal less to impact the quality of life for someone who has nothing than for someone who already has a lot. Ten thousand dollars would be insignificant to Gov. Romney (for example), be significant to me, possibly save the life of someone with nothing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:am not sure how that would work. It takes a great deal less to impact the quality of life for someone who has nothing than for someone who already has a lot. Ten thousand dollars would be insignificant to Gov. Romney (for example), be significant to me, possibly save the life of someone with nothing.
I'd go further than that. Romney's income last year was $21.7 million. I suspect he could handle a 10% decrease in that income (2.17 million) without any noticeable impact on his quality of life. That same percent decrease for a household earning $21,700 dollars a year would very likely mean not being able to pay essential bills or buy food. An extra $2000 dollars a year to a family on the edge of poverty makes a huge difference. Someone like Romney could make that difference for a thousand families and not even feel a pinch.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think you're both taking an inherently utilitarian view of welfare (social welfare as the aggregate of individual welfares), and coupling it with an model in which the marginal welfare benefit of wealth is sublinear. That's not an unreasonable way of viewing social welfare, and it may match your experiences and beliefs well, but it certainly isn't the only model of social welfare, nor (IMO) is it sufficient for describing the way we generally experience society.
<edit>That reads as exceptionally (and unnecessarily) academic to me. All I'm saying is that the amount you help (or hurt) someone may include factors other than the value they get from consuming wealth, and that the overall value to society may not be a simple sum of individual enjoyments. I think the model you're working from is generally a good baseline model, but I don't think it really covers all the ways in which we receive social benefit (or costs).
Also, I think you maybe twisting Romney's words into a statement focused on taxes and wealth distribution. In reality, he was talking about his proposed legislative agenda, and the "focus" he was talking about was how much legislative effort should be put into solving problems facing particular subsets of society. So, all the discussion of social welfare aside, I think you may be (again, understandably given his phraseology) misreading what Romney's saying. Or maybe I am, which is also completely possible.</edit>
[ February 01, 2012, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok. I will refocus to try to get my position across. This is the relevant point of contextual expansion I am looking at or whatever:
quote:"We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor," Romney said. "But the middle-income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now."
Yes. They're the folks that are really struggling right now (aside from the folks that are struggling more and have it worse, like, say, the poor.)
Put all his little snippets together and you get the real sense of what he's saying and what he's trying not to say, then he fails at the things you should not say part and gives his opposition a nice quote that you can play in terrible attack ads while Romney is in an ugly brown tint and there's a low dark sound playing in the background. MITT ROMNEY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POOR PEOPLE paid for by citizens for a united citizen's united Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojReptep, what are some of these other factors and how would we measure them. I have some ideas but am curious to hear yours as none of the measure I am coming up with would be negatively impacted by focusing on the problems of the poor. In fact, quite the opposite.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojReptep, what are some of these other factors and how would we measure them. I have some ideas but am curious to hear yours as none of the measure I am coming up with would be negatively impacted by focusing on the problems of the poor. In fact, quite the opposite.
I don't think there are good utilitarian explanations for concepts like fundamental liberties.
For example, say someone needs a kidney transplant and I'm a match for them. I find it pretty likely that their marginal benefit at receiving a kidney is greater than my marginal cost at losing one. However, I think the overall social welfare of a society in which kidneys are forcibly taken from those that have and given to those that need is not as high as one in which people's rights to their internal organs is held inviolate.
<edit>To take a less esoteric example: suppose my neighbor is pretty ambivalent about what color he paints his house, but he slightly prefer fuscia. I _hate_ fuscia, and I derive significant welfare cost from living next door to a fuscia house. Again, I think it's at least arguable that the overall social welfare of a society in which people have the right to paint their homes whatever color they choose is higher that one in which my strongly held aversion to fuscia can override my neighbor's choice of house paint.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Actually, both of those cases are extreme. In one case the need was great but sacrifice was unreasonably large. * In the second case the need was unreasonably small. Unless one could prove some demostrable reasonable harm?
In neither case, is focusing on the poor as issue, though.
*I am please that you consider relinquishing an organ to be an untenable violation of freedom, though. I assume that you are pro-choice?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just wondering at what point, short of a pronouncement of "Let them eat cake" we can say that Romney is quite out of touch, economically, with mainstream America and not be met with a storm of eye-rolling and huffing?
Realistically I know the answer is likely 'not at any loint', but man it'd be nice.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:am not sure how that would work. It takes a great deal less to impact the quality of life for someone who has nothing than for someone who already has a lot. Ten thousand dollars would be insignificant to Gov. Romney (for example), be significant to me, possibly save the life of someone with nothing.
I'd go further than that. Romney's income last year was $21.7 million. I suspect he could handle a 10% decrease in that income (2.17 million) without any noticeable impact on his quality of life. That same percent decrease for a household earning $21,700 dollars a year would very likely mean not being able to pay essential bills or buy food. An extra $2000 dollars a year to a family on the edge of poverty makes a huge difference. Someone like Romney could make that difference for a thousand families and not even feel a pinch.
I suspect he could handle a lot more than a 10% decrease. I'm assuming taking away 10% is an arbitrary example? I'm curious as to where most feel the threshold of fairness lies with regards to decreasing his income (I think you don't mean actually reducing his income, but reducing the amount he keeps for himself, yes?).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
10% seems to be a common arbitrary (or .. not?) example to show the differences in impact of percentile reduction of income to quality of life and ability to make ends meet relative to distance from objective poverty lines.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just wondering at what point, short of a pronouncement of "Let them eat cake" we can say that Romney is quite out of touch, economically, with mainstream America and not be met with a storm of eye-rolling and huffing?
Realistically I know the answer is likely 'not at any loint', but man it'd be nice.
Jon Stewart has done a fantastic job in recent weeks of hammering Romney on the issues of wealth, corporatism, and being out of touch with reality (as well as out of touch with America). He's also drawn some fascinating contrasts by comparing the things Romney says about himself, corporations, the government, and regular Americans and pointing out where his concepts of fairness simply don't apply to everyone. He comes across quite terribly.
Once Obama actually wades into the election, I think he's going to drop a populist bomb on Romney's head that Romney will have extreme problems fending off, given the defenses he's used in previous months.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I have to admit, I laughed to myself when I read this in Card's latest essay:
quote:I'm not pro-Mitt (though as Gingrich reveals his character, I'm moving that way)....
As Gingrich reveals his character? It is to laugh.
[ February 02, 2012, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Once Obama actually wades into the election, I think he's going to drop a populist bomb on Romney's head that Romney will have extreme problems fending off, given the defenses he's used in previous months.
I have a feeling this election is going to turn into one the nastiest blood baths in anyone's memory. Both the left and right seem more motivated by a fear of the opposition than enthusiasm for their candidate. Combine that with the Citizen's United decision and we've set the stage for a really ugly campaign season, no matter what course the candidates choose.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I have to admit, I laughed to myself when I read this in Card's latest essay:
quote:I'm not pro-Mitt (though as Gingrich reveals his character, I'm moving that way)....
An Gingrich reveals his character? It is to laugh.
quote:Time Traveler From The Year 1998 Warns Nation Not To Elect Newt Gingrich
WASHINGTON—Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign. "In my time, he shuts down the federal government for 28 days because his feelings get hurt over having to sit at the back of Air Force One. Gingrich gets our president impeached for lying about marital infidelities when, at the same time, Gingrich himself is engaged in his own extramarital affairs. And for God's sake, he divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Won't anyone listen to me?!?" When asked about Donald Trump, the time-traveler said he had no information on the man, as no one from 1998 cared about a "washed-up fake millionaire."
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
: laugh : Yeah.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just wondering at what point, short of a pronouncement of "Let them eat cake" we can say that Romney is quite out of touch, economically, with mainstream America and not be met with a storm of eye-rolling and huffing?
I've thought he was economically out of touch for a long time, although the "I'll bet you $10k" was his "Let them eat cake" moment for me. I just don't think this particular excerpt is a great example of it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Samp, thanks for the link, that was awesome. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I've thought he was economically out of touch for a long time, although the "I'll bet you $10k" was his "Let them eat cake" moment for me. I just don't think this particular excerpt is a great example of it.
Honestly, I think his line about how his speaking fees were 'not very much' (oh, only like $374,327, a mere pittance, wot wot) was even worse.
He goofs a lot at the whole "whatever you do, Romney, don't look like you are hopelessly out of touch with the plebes" thing
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I can't speak for him, but "pro-choice" isn't a freedom. Its murder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For me the "let them eat cake moment" was a little publicized statement Ann Romney made during the 2008 primary season. In response to the question of whether they could relate to the financial troubles faced by ordinary people, she said something to the effect that they could because they too had had financial difficulties. When they were in school, there were times when they had to dip into her trust fund to make ends meet.
I wish I could find the exact quote but either my google foo is weak or the faux pas of the wife of a 2008 "also ran" don't get remembered by many.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I have to admit, I laughed to myself when I read this in Card's latest essay:
quote:I'm not pro-Mitt (though as Gingrich reveals his character, I'm moving that way)....
An Gingrich reveals his character? It is to laugh.
What I got from that (incredibly whiny) essay (Think of of the poor Mormon children that can never hope to be president! *sob*) was this part.
quote: There is nothing about Romney that could not be embraced by most non-lunatic Republicans, nothing to make him an "anybody-but" candidate -- except that he's a Mormon.
The problem is not that the non-lunatic Republican are shunning the Mormon; it is that there are too few non-lunatic Republicans. It isn't that Gov. Romney is too Mormon. He just isn't rabid enough for the base.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For me the "let them eat cake moment" was a little publicized statement Ann Romney made during the 2008 primary season. In response to the question of whether they could relate to the financial troubles faced by ordinary people, she said something to the effect that they could because they too had had financial difficulties. When they were in school, there were times when they had to dip into her trust fund to make ends meet.
I wish I could find the exact quote but either my google foo is weak or the faux pas of the wife of a 2008 "also ran" don't get remembered by many.
quote:Mitt Romney is going around saying that he made all his money himself, aside from a loan from his dad to buy his first house.
Journalists who buy that have short memories. I was living in Massachusetts when Romney first ran for the Senate, and remembered this interview with Ann Romney in the Boston Globe (by Jack Thomas, October 20, 1994; the abstract is here; the full text costs $4.95).
...
Ann was widely mocked for this at the time. I don’t dissent from the mockery. Her idea of her and Mitt facing “not easy years,” having “no income,” “living on the edge” as “struggling students,” was that the couple had had to face college with only sale of stock to sustain them. By Ann’s own account, the stock amounted to “a few thousand” dollars when bought, but it had gone up by a factor of sixteen. So let’s conservatively say that they got through five years as students—neither one of them working—only by “chipping away at” assets of $60,000 in 1969 dollars (about $377,000 today).
Look. I don’t begrudge Romney’s having had his college tuition and living expenses paid for with family money. Mine were too. My background, though not as fancy as Mitt or Ann Romney’s, was privileged enough. But the guy should just come out and admit it: “I was a child of privilege and have my parents’ wealth to thank for my education. That said, I worked very very hard in business, and the vast majority of my fortune I earned myself.”
But there is of course a reason he can’t say that: such a statement is customarily followed by an expression of gratitude and a willingness to give something back to society. And gratitude and a willingness to give something back are precisely what Romney lacks—in common with the party he’s aspiring to represent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:But there is of course a reason he can’t say that: such a statement is customarily followed by an expression of gratitude and a willingness to give something back to society. And gratitude and a willingness to give something back are precisely what Romney lacks—in common with the party he’s aspiring to represent.
Exactly this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What I got from that (incredibly whiny) essay (Think of of the poor Mormon children that can never hope to be president! *sob*) was this part.
quote: There is nothing about Romney that could not be embraced by most non-lunatic Republicans, nothing to make him an "anybody-but" candidate -- except that he's a Mormon.
The problem is not that the non-lunatic Republican are shunning the Mormon; it is that there are too few non-lunatic Republicans. It isn't that Gov. Romney is too Mormon. He just isn't rabid enough for the base.
It goes even a little bit farther. Its an article which has the core, bolded point of "When it comes to presidential politics in the Republican Party, Mormons need not apply."
And he's saying this as the republicans are all set to vote a mormon to be their presidential candidate in their own primary.
A mormon which he himself supported Gingrich over. Obviously he hasn't been making a case that romney is moving forward on qualifications that overcome his mormon-ness, and he even made the wholly and factually incorrect claim that Gingrich stands a better chance in the election than Romney, which leaves the indication that he's only really trying to sell himself or defend himself on his own entrenched narrative that it is romney's mormonness that makes him unelectable.
Don't even know what to make of that, anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I especially appreciated:
quote:And where were the evangelical Republicans whose dread of Mormons now drives the anti-Mitt movement? It's fine for Mormons to take the lead when there's a risk, but apparently it doesn't earn us a seat at the table.
So, it turns out attacking minority groups doesn't in fact endear you to groups that in turn consider you a minority? Surprise?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But...it's just so sad the discrimination they face. Intolerance is just so cruel. Why they are barely allowed to marry and serve in the military.
Wait...that's not them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But Kate, this is totally different. Card didn't choose to be a Mormon.
Wait...that's not them either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Once Obama actually wades into the election, I think he's going to drop a populist bomb on Romney's head that Romney will have extreme problems fending off, given the defenses he's used in previous months.
I have a feeling this election is going to turn into one the nastiest blood baths in anyone's memory. Both the left and right seem more motivated by a fear of the opposition than enthusiasm for their candidate. Combine that with the Citizen's United decision and we've set the stage for a really ugly campaign season, no matter what course the candidates choose.
Some of it is going to be legitimate. There really are some fundamental disagreements over what we should be doing as a country that could be well-served by a rigorous public debate.
The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
But if it goes the route of Obama hitting Romney over wealth issues, and Romney hitting Obama over economic issues, well, I think that gets to a very real place that probably needs to be talked about. The goodness of that debate will depend heavily on how often they pivot to straw mans instead of reality.
I'm pushing forward with cautious pessimism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I especially appreciated:
quote:And where were the evangelical Republicans whose dread of Mormons now drives the anti-Mitt movement? It's fine for Mormons to take the lead when there's a risk, but apparently it doesn't earn us a seat at the table.
So, it turns out attacking minority groups doesn't in fact endear you to groups that in turn consider you a minority? Surprise?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But...it's just so sad the discrimination they face. Intolerance is just so cruel. Why they are barely allowed to marry and serve in the military.
Wait...that's not them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But Kate, this is totally different. Card didn't choose to be a Mormon.
Wait...that's not them either.
Is there like a Hatrack academy awards of posting, because
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course
That said.
Obama's odds on Intrade appear ... appropriate, "optimistically," for how I can best anticipate the election to go. The whole circus-level drama in the republican primary stems from how republicans are so desperate to shop for someone who actually inspires them, and would have picked pretty much any other valid conservative candidate had there been any viable non-Romney candidate that wasn't a joke and/or a walking human disaster.
The field has been primed such that when Obama enters the race, his campaign can bombdrop on the "super-rich, out of touch, called himself middle class" Romney, who really just comes off looking like a plastic robot built from a Make Your Own Cracker-Ass Multimillionaire kit (Now with karate Platitudes™ action!).
I would like to make a guarantee, and will stand by this assessment: the only way that Romney will win in a straight-up election otherwise unhindered by a dramatic unassessed future variable (major crisis, scandal, etc) will be if conservatives utilize citizen's united to outspend Obama's campaigners by an order of magnitudes. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For me the "let them eat cake moment" was a little publicized statement Ann Romney made during the 2008 primary season. In response to the question of whether they could relate to the financial troubles faced by ordinary people, she said something to the effect that they could because they too had had financial difficulties. When they were in school, there were times when they had to dip into her trust fund to make ends meet.
I wish I could find the exact quote but either my google foo is weak or the faux pas of the wife of a 2008 "also ran" don't get remembered by many.
I am humbled by the magnificence of your google foo. Teach me master. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I especially appreciated:
quote:And where were the evangelical Republicans whose dread of Mormons now drives the anti-Mitt movement? It's fine for Mormons to take the lead when there's a risk, but apparently it doesn't earn us a seat at the table.
What I especially liked about the sentence you quoted here was that it immediately followed this:
quote:For instance, why were Mormons the main scapegoats of the Left for the passage of the marriage-protection initiative in California? The decisive bloc of votes for the proposition came from blacks and Hispanics -- but Democrats didn't dare punish them for their morally conservative position on family life, because without blacks and Hispanics the Democratic party couldn't get any electoral votes anywhere.
Why were Mormons the main "scapegoats" of the Left for the passage of the marriage-protection initiative in California? Could it be because, as Card put it, they "took the lead" on it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've thought he was economically out of touch for a long time, although the "I'll bet you $10k" was his "Let them eat cake" moment for me. I just don't think this particular excerpt is a great example of it.
Oh, I don't think it's a great example either. His actual words were not nearly as 'eff the poor' as the sound bite portrays, of course. I just think it's a nod in the out-of-touch tone of Romney.
A much larger indicator of how out of touch he is, for me, is apparently how overwhelmingly large America's middle class is.
-------
Card's whining about conservative Republican treachery vs Mormons demands a re-read of the fable about the frog and the scorpion. (Though I actually think that particular yarn has featured many animals.)
--------
Heh. Yeah, Jake, when did Newt get so mean? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've always heard it as the fox and the scorpion, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the reference.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pft, a fox would be entirely too clever to do such a thing!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course
That said.
Obama's odds on Intrade appear ... appropriate, "optimistically," for how I can best anticipate the election to go. The whole circus-level drama in the republican primary stems from how republicans are so desperate to shop for someone who actually inspires them, and would have picked pretty much any other valid conservative candidate had there been any viable non-Romney candidate that wasn't a joke and/or a walking human disaster.
The field has been primed such that when Obama enters the race, his campaign can bombdrop on the "super-rich, out of touch, called himself middle class" Romney, who really just comes off looking like a plastic robot built from a Make Your Own Cracker-Ass Multimillionaire kit (Now with karate Platitudes™ action!).
I would like to make a guarantee, and will stand by this assessment: the only way that Romney will win in a straight-up election otherwise unhindered by a dramatic unassessed future variable (major crisis, scandal, etc) will be if conservatives utilize citizen's united to outspend Obama's campaigners by an order of magnitudes.
I don't think he'll be outspent by that much. I think he'll be outspent, sure, but he's shown an amazing ability beyond anyone's wildest dreams to fundraise huge sums, and that's just his money. Obama will have his PACs as well, though they'll be grossly underfunded by comparison.
Plus, are we going to find that there's a point at which the supersaturation of campaigns with money produces diminishing returns. You can only air ads so many times. Workers can only canvass so many neighborhoods. There are only so many people up for grabs to even have their minds changed. it just seems like at some point the money can be spent but I question how effective it will be.
I also question how well candidates will be able to escape the tagging of SuperPACS. We've already seen a kerfuffle grow out of the GOP primary regarding PACs, with Newt and Mitt going after each other for what their PACs have said, and attempts to brush off the control issue have fallen rather flat if you ask me.
The Warren/Brown race in Massachusetts is getting some attention for the voluntary approach they are taking to campaign finance. That could get interesting.
I agree that the bomb dropping you refer to will happen. I also happen to think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Whether it's a respectable campaign issue or not is up for debate.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I thought on prop 8, the Mormons kinda weren't invited until it became obvious that without them, prop 8 wasn't going to work. They were like the last to join the coalition and were the figurative straw. That position makes you stand out. Sure the other 500 straws contributed, but the last one, the one that pushed it over is the one to get the blame. Human nature and all that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I thought on prop 8, the Mormons kinda weren't invited until it became obvious that without them, prop 8 wasn't going to work. They were like the last to join the coalition and were the figurative straw. That position makes you stand out. Sure the other 500 straws contributed, but the last one, the one that pushed it over is the one to get the blame. Human nature and all that.
Also worth mentioning: OSC's comments about the high turnout of black voters (likely due to Obama's candidacy) having the side effect of tipping the scales for Prop 8 are supported by the facts.
Demographically speaking, black voters were more likely to support Prop 8, and black turnout was at an all-time high in 2008.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think he'll be outspent by that much.
Heh. And, moving forward with logical thrust of my statements, I'm saying that, by extension, intrade doesn't think so either :>
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course
That said.
Obama's odds on Intrade appear ... appropriate, "optimistically," for how I can best anticipate the election to go. The whole circus-level drama in the republican primary stems from how republicans are so desperate to shop for someone who actually inspires them, and would have picked pretty much any other valid conservative candidate had there been any viable non-Romney candidate that wasn't a joke and/or a walking human disaster.
The field has been primed such that when Obama enters the race, his campaign can bombdrop on the "super-rich, out of touch, called himself middle class" Romney, who really just comes off looking like a plastic robot built from a Make Your Own Cracker-Ass Multimillionaire kit (Now with karate Platitudes™ action!).
I would like to make a guarantee, and will stand by this assessment: the only way that Romney will win in a straight-up election otherwise unhindered by a dramatic unassessed future variable (major crisis, scandal, etc) will be if conservatives utilize citizen's united to outspend Obama's campaigners by an order of magnitudes.
I don't think he'll be outspent by that much. I think he'll be outspent, sure, but he's shown an amazing ability beyond anyone's wildest dreams to fundraise huge sums, and that's just his money. Obama will have his PACs as well, though they'll be grossly underfunded by comparison.
Plus, are we going to find that there's a point at which the supersaturation of campaigns with money produces diminishing returns. You can only air ads so many times. Workers can only canvass so many neighborhoods. There are only so many people up for grabs to even have their minds changed. it just seems like at some point the money can be spent but I question how effective it will be.
I also question how well candidates will be able to escape the tagging of SuperPACS. We've already seen a kerfuffle grow out of the GOP primary regarding PACs, with Newt and Mitt going after each other for what their PACs have said, and attempts to brush off the control issue have fallen rather flat if you ask me.
The Warren/Brown race in Massachusetts is getting some attention for the voluntary approach they are taking to campaign finance. That could get interesting.
I agree that the bomb dropping you refer to will happen. I also happen to think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Whether it's a respectable campaign issue or not is up for debate.
Lyrhawn: Are Super-Pacs allowed to offer financial incentives for people who vote for their candidate, such as raffles or just flat out, vote for this candidate and get $5?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I thought on prop 8, the Mormons kinda weren't invited until it became obvious that without them, prop 8 wasn't going to work. They were like the last to join the coalition and were the figurative straw. That position makes you stand out. Sure the other 500 straws contributed, but the last one, the one that pushed it over is the one to get the blame. Human nature and all that.
More than that, re: the blacks — to the critics analyzing the fault that lies behind prop 8's passage, an organized institution operating with purpose represents much more a faultable organization in regards to the effort, and could be targeted as an institution engaging purposefully against gay marriage — in a way you can't do with blacks as an ethnic group.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I thought on prop 8, the Mormons kinda weren't invited until it became obvious that without them, prop 8 wasn't going to work. They were like the last to join the coalition and were the figurative straw. That position makes you stand out. Sure the other 500 straws contributed, but the last one, the one that pushed it over is the one to get the blame. Human nature and all that.
More than that, re: the blacks — to the critics analyzing the fault that lies behind prop 8's passage, an organized institution operating with purpose represents much more a faultable organization in regards to the effort, and could be targeted as an institution engaging purposefully against gay marriage — in a way you can't do with blacks as an ethnic group.
Oh, absolutely!
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course
That said.
Obama's odds on Intrade appear ... appropriate, "optimistically," for how I can best anticipate the election to go. The whole circus-level drama in the republican primary stems from how republicans are so desperate to shop for someone who actually inspires them, and would have picked pretty much any other valid conservative candidate had there been any viable non-Romney candidate that wasn't a joke and/or a walking human disaster.
The field has been primed such that when Obama enters the race, his campaign can bombdrop on the "super-rich, out of touch, called himself middle class" Romney, who really just comes off looking like a plastic robot built from a Make Your Own Cracker-Ass Multimillionaire kit (Now with karate Platitudes™ action!).
I would like to make a guarantee, and will stand by this assessment: the only way that Romney will win in a straight-up election otherwise unhindered by a dramatic unassessed future variable (major crisis, scandal, etc) will be if conservatives utilize citizen's united to outspend Obama's campaigners by an order of magnitudes.
I don't think he'll be outspent by that much. I think he'll be outspent, sure, but he's shown an amazing ability beyond anyone's wildest dreams to fundraise huge sums, and that's just his money. Obama will have his PACs as well, though they'll be grossly underfunded by comparison.
Plus, are we going to find that there's a point at which the supersaturation of campaigns with money produces diminishing returns. You can only air ads so many times. Workers can only canvass so many neighborhoods. There are only so many people up for grabs to even have their minds changed. it just seems like at some point the money can be spent but I question how effective it will be.
I also question how well candidates will be able to escape the tagging of SuperPACS. We've already seen a kerfuffle grow out of the GOP primary regarding PACs, with Newt and Mitt going after each other for what their PACs have said, and attempts to brush off the control issue have fallen rather flat if you ask me.
The Warren/Brown race in Massachusetts is getting some attention for the voluntary approach they are taking to campaign finance. That could get interesting.
I agree that the bomb dropping you refer to will happen. I also happen to think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Whether it's a respectable campaign issue or not is up for debate.
Lyrhawn: Are Super-Pacs allowed to offer financial incentives for people who vote for their candidate, such as raffles or just flat out, vote for this candidate and get $5?
Is this a serious question?
No. No they can't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They could in the good old days. Blatant bribery or votes for favors is a tried and true part of American democracy historically.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yep, but I'm pretty sure BB was asking if it's legal.
That he thought it might be seems a good barometer for how out of touch some people's perception of citizen's united is.
Sorry, BB, not trying to offend you. I doubt you're the only person to wonder than.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blackblade, since there isn't any way to tell which way a person voted, cash incentives for votes are not very practical. One can, however, offer giveaways at rallies or perks for volunteers in order to influence a voter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: I wasn't thinking about Citizen's United at all when I asked my question. I'm just trying to think legally what's to stop me from telling my neighbor, "Here's a $10 voucher for Chili's, go out and vote for this person." Or if you come to my rally we will be giving away $10,000 to one patriot. Now that we are close to the polling station and it's election day, go out and vote for X!
Kate: I realize it's impractical. I'm just thinking about what might happen if you have lots of money coming in, but advertising isn't enough.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not at all impractical. It worked for decades in the past. After 1840 began the great period of American participation. For a few decades, Americans turned out to vote in huge numbers consistently for every election, with turnout rates that would crash and never again rise as high in the 20th century. It happened in large part because of the social aspect of voting back then. Political parties would basically either throw huge parties and then give you a ballot and direct you to the polling place, or they'd actually hold the precinct in a bar and give away free drinks. It's no wonder turnout was so high.
And then there's the machine politics of the big cities. In the back half of the 19th century, city bosses would outright buy you off, give you of favors, like sneaking a family member through customs, or looking the other way on something, or getting a brother out of jail, to keep a tight-fisted control over the city. Even the Pendleton Act and like measures at Civil Service Reform didn't do much to root out the effects of political patronage (though it helped). This system was in place and highly effective for decades, but it waned with the rise of consumerism and more solid political identification and affiliation.
A modern version of it would probably work just fine...though the media is a lot better at vilifying these things...when it chooses to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
All I am saying is that there (technically) is no way to know if a voter kept their end of the bargain. They could take your bribe and still vote however they wanted to vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Generally the type of people you're going to draw out with that sort of activity are people too apathetic or lazy to vote anyway. Bribery in this context is all about turnout.
Thus, most of them will have no ideological basis for taking your bribe and turning on you. They'll probably go along with it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm pretty sure businesses have been sanctioned for offering discounts/freebies to people wearing "I voted" stickers.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Your point is well taken, Kate. In order for the bribery to be effective, you would still need to persuade the person that voting for you is actually a good idea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, makes a good point.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Your point is well taken, Kate. In order for the bribery to be effective, you would still need to persuade the person that voting for you is actually a good idea.
Well you could target your bribes toward people likely to vote in a way that you'd favor. Offering $5 to people in poor inner-city neighborhoods would likely net you votes for the Democratic candidate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That would be an effective way to do it, I agree Matt.
Another way could be to target youth voters. You could utilize stuff kids appreciate, like rock stars or something, to energize them into voting. You wouldn't need to have any party affiliation with the push, because the demographic you're targeting skews heavily one way anyway.
That would be pretty clever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... and could be targeted as an institution engaging purposefully against gay marriage — in a way you can't do with blacks as an ethnic group.
Additionally, it turned out that when you crunch the numbers, any differences between ethnic groups unfortunately vanish when you control for religiosity.
In other words, if you're trying to target a particular institution behind the increased latino/black tendency to vote in support of the proposition, you're just going to end back at Christianity which was already under heavy criticism anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan_Frank: Can I be back in touch with my perceptions of Citizen's United?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, sure! I saw your clarification, and mentally adjusted my assumption, but didn't realize you wanted me to explicitly acknowledge it.
I hereby disavow my assumption that you had a misconception of what Citizen's United was about.
Cool?
PS: You don't need to include the underscore. Really. I promise. I'll know who you're talking to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Isnt anyone going to make the joke/observation that we already bribe at least one group of voters based on demographics-seniors whom we've spent decades now swearing we'll never ever ever^23 lower benefits, as well as never raising taxes?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who was it that said that famous line about politicians learning they can bribe people with their own money? It's incredibly true.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That would be an effective way to do it, I agree Matt.
Another way could be to target youth voters. You could utilize stuff kids appreciate, like rock stars or something, to energize them into voting. You wouldn't need to have any party affiliation with the push, because the demographic you're targeting skews heavily one way anyway.
That would be pretty clever.
Already done several times over. You'd think it'd be more of a Democratic thing too, but there are several music stars out there that throw concerts for GOP candidates. They hit fairs and college campuses with free concerts in tandem with politicians. I'm not sure how much you can directly correlate that to voting because there's a much less direct connection.
In olden times, the concert would be ON election day, so you'd literally vote right at the concert. These days, it'd probably be over the summer at a rally or something, and an 18 year old simply isn't going to carry over his gratitude, such as it is, months to the election, if that's even enough to get him off his butt anyway. Now, hold the concert right next door to the polling place and you're really on to something. Getting kids out of their chairs in the first place is like 90% of the battle. But again, I think a lot of them are predisposed towards voting one way, so you have to be careful who you pick on demographically, and WHERE. There are plenty of young Republicans where I live now.
By and large concerts are used right now to target groups of younger people who already support a certain candidate to energize them and increase turnout.
Turnout, turnout, turnout. Getting them to the polls is probably more important than getting them to agree with you in the modern era.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who was it that said that famous line about politicians learning they can bribe people with their own money? It's incredibly true.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That would be an effective way to do it, I agree Matt.
Another way could be to target youth voters. You could utilize stuff kids appreciate, like rock stars or something, to energize them into voting. You wouldn't need to have any party affiliation with the push, because the demographic you're targeting skews heavily one way anyway.
That would be pretty clever.
Already done several times over. You'd think it'd be more of a Democratic thing too, but there are several music stars out there that throw concerts for GOP candidates. They hit fairs and college campuses with free concerts in tandem with politicians. I'm not sure how much you can directly correlate that to voting because there's a much less direct connection.
In olden times, the concert would be ON election day, so you'd literally vote right at the concert. These days, it'd probably be over the summer at a rally or something, and an 18 year old simply isn't going to carry over his gratitude, such as it is, months to the election, if that's even enough to get him off his butt anyway. Now, hold the concert right next door to the polling place and you're really on to something. Getting kids out of their chairs in the first place is like 90% of the battle. But again, I think a lot of them are predisposed towards voting one way, so you have to be careful who you pick on demographically, and WHERE. There are plenty of young Republicans where I live now.
By and large concerts are used right now to target groups of younger people who already support a certain candidate to energize them and increase turnout.
Turnout, turnout, turnout. Getting them to the polls is probably more important than getting them to agree with you in the modern era.
Yeah I was being a smart-ass and referring to the "Rock the Vote" movement of the 90s.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Isnt anyone going to make the joke/observation that we already bribe at least one group of voters based on demographics-seniors whom we've spent decades now swearing we'll never ever ever^23 lower benefits, as well as never raising taxes?
Oh absolutely!
Let's be honest, though, by this metric government bribes all kinds of demographics. If a party is in the business of giving you more money (or taking less of your money) then that provides an obvious incentive to vote for them. That's why poor people skew left and small business owners skew right.
I mean, there are plenty of people who don't vote their pocketbook due to their principles, but there's no point in pretending it's not a common phenomenon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... and could be targeted as an institution engaging purposefully against gay marriage — in a way you can't do with blacks as an ethnic group.
Additionally, it turned out that when you crunch the numbers, any differences between ethnic groups unfortunately vanish when you control for religiosity.
In other words, if you're trying to target a particular institution behind the increased latino/black tendency to vote in support of the proposition, you're just going to end back at Christianity which was already under heavy criticism anyway.
WELL then, there you go!
Do you have anything handy that showed this to be the case?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
That isn't what I was thinking of and it would seem very out of character if either candidate went down that line. Of course, under current laws PACs could go that route even if the candidates object, but that isn't really what I expected either.
Republicans are anything but excited about Romney and Democrats are pretty luke warm on Obama these days. That will make it hard for either candidate to get their base to turn out to vote.
If you can't get your base to be enthusiastic about your candidacy, the obvious alternative is to motivate them with fear of your opponent. So what I'm predicting is that both parties are going to tie themselves up in knots trying to make there opponent look like a dangerous extremist. Obama will be portrayed as a socialist anti-American who is incompetent and naive about everything from the economy to terrorism. Romney will be portrayed as a corporate elitist who will eliminate social security, medicare, and student grants and loans, rather than raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
If Romney's religion becomes an issue after the primary season ends, it's most likely to be with accusations that Mormon's have too much in common with the conservative Christian groups who want to weaken the separation of church and state. The conservative Christians who think Mormonism is a dangerous cult aren't going to work for Obama's re-election so unless some one from that camp decides to run as an independent, that argument will fade into obscurity once Romney's clinched the nomination.
I can't imagine the birther issue ever gaining momentum beyond the wight wing wackos but it is a fringe on the edge of a more main stream fear that Obama isn't a "real" American.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Do you have anything handy that showed this to be the case?
Something like this:
quote: Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted “no” on Proposition 8. The differences that remain among groups are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.
assuming a fair shot for both candidates, the easy popular attitude manipulation to work americans with (and thus the one you will see the most of) for the democrats is to continually depress conservatives and ensure they not think of Romney as 'one of their own.' — something that can be relentlessly done over his plasticine appearances and the fact that he has adopted platitudes and promises for the conservative base just for this election, which fly profoundly counter to the policies he governed with — which makes it all seem reliably like nakedly opportunistic political shapeshifting to win the primary, as opposed to being personally ideologically aligned with conservatives.
Probably because, well, you know, it's nakedly opportunistic political shapeshifting to win the primary. Sorry, Mitt.
quote:I can't imagine the birther issue ever gaining momentum beyond the wight wing wackos but it is a fringe on the edge of a more main stream fear that Obama isn't a "real" American.
It isn't even really a fringe. It is actually still the majority. The number of conservatives who have gone ahead and plum figured out that Obama was born in the united states is, afaik from the last polls I looked at, still a minority. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Probably because, well, you know, it's nakedly opportunistic political shapeshifting to win the primary. Sorry, Mitt. [Frown]
His flip flopping actually makes it possible for opponents to attack him from both sides. I can see the attack ads now. Complete with scary music, distorted images and strip quotes.
quote:Which Mitt Romney do you believe? The scary liberal Romney who promoted socialized medicine and abortion in MA or the evil ultra-conservative heartless Romney who made his millions firing people. If you aren't scared of Romney yet, you will be.
--- This message brought to you by NOTOBAMA: real citizens united against cultish flip flopping.
[ February 03, 2012, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It isn't even really a fringe. It is actually still the majority. The number of conservatives who have gone ahead and plum figured out that Obama was born in the united states is, afaik from the last polls I looked at, still a minority.
Is there a poll that is more recent than this one?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This poll breaks it down demographically. The numbers for Republicans are quite different with a bare majority (52%) of Republicans thinking it certain or probably that the President was born in the US.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It isn't even really a fringe. It is actually still the majority. The number of conservatives who have gone ahead and plum figured out that Obama was born in the united states is, afaik from the last polls I looked at, still a minority.
Is there a poll that is more recent than this one?
He might be referring to this poll from a year ago, of likely Republican Primary voters, which claims 51% of respondents thought Obama was born outside the US.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
God, I'd sooner vote for Zombie Lenin than run with that pack!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate has a slightly more recent and seemingly more honest poll. Thanks Kate! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: This poll breaks it down demographically. The numbers for Republicans are quite different with a bare majority (52%) of Republicans thinking it certain or probably that the President was born in the US.
Kate, That poll was done before April 27th, 2011 when Obama released his long form birth certificate. The one I linked was done in May 2011 and shows a significant decrease in the percent of Americans who believe Obama was born outside the US. That poll doesn't break it down by party. Does anyone know of any polls that break this down by party that were done after 27 April 2011.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate has a slightly more recent and seemingly more honest poll. Thanks Kate!
More recent than poll you linked but still less recent than the poll I linked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dan_Frank: Can I be back in touch with my perceptions of Citizen's United?
Only if you friend them on facebook and like their posts at least once a week.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does anyone know of any polls that break this down by party that were done after 27 April 2011.
Here's one from Gallup that breaks it down demographically. Notice that the numbers are still much higher than the WaPo poll you posted. This is likely due to the significant difference in the way the question was asked, which gets to the heart of the problem of interpreting responses to opinion polls as objectively accurate. There's a lot of cheerleading partisanship, rather than logical reflective deliberations.
<edit>By "cheerleading partisanship" I mean essentially this (from Gary Langer, head pollster for ABC news):
quote:I think these measurements are not really reflecting 'belief' in the true sense of the phrase," he said. "Many people are expressing their opinion rather than an assertion of factual reality. People who don’t like you are going to take an opportunity to send a message.... They’re simply taking advantage of an opportunity to express antipathy toward him.
I think the dramatic difference between the WaPo poll and the Gallup poll quantifies, to some degree, exactly this effect.
For more on the partisan cheerleading effect, see this post by Brendan Nyhan comparing the partisan makeup of of people who express truther opinions and those who express birther opinions.</edit>
[ February 03, 2012, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I am still wondering, if $=Speech, then why isn't bribery legal?
"I'm Darth Maul. I know how to manage money. Instead of spending about $200 per person on ads in this district, I'll pay every person $100-cash in exchange for your vote. All I ask is that you promise to vote for me. Warning, I will uphold all of my campaign promise to the same percentage as you, who promise to vote for me, actually vote for me."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is one from right after the birth certificate was released but it doesn't break it down.
From Kate's link, 9% of Americans consider themselves "part of the Birther movement." Given the partisan makeup of the US, this would lead me to guess that something like 12-15% of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents probably cop to being birthers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course [/i]
Speaking of which.
"Koch Brothers, Allies Pledge $100 Million At Private Meeting To Beat Obama"
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: From Kate's link, 9% of Americans consider themselves "part of the Birther movement." Given the partisan makeup of the US, this would lead me to guess that something like 12-15% of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents probably cop to being birthers.
Which of Kate's links? Her most recent link reported
quote:18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.) * 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I am still wondering, if $=Speech, then why isn't bribery legal?
"I'm Darth Maul. I know how to manage money. Instead of spending about $200 per person on ads in this district, I'll pay every person $100-cash in exchange for your vote. All I ask is that you promise to vote for me. Warning, I will uphold all of my campaign promise to the same percentage as you, who promise to vote for me, actually vote for me."
I'd be interested to see what would happen if that made it to SCOTUS and what sort of legal flimflam they'd use to separate the two without delegitimizing Citizens United.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well, isn't there a pretty tried and true method for getting these sorts of things tested out?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate has a slightly more recent and seemingly more honest poll. Thanks Kate!
More recent than poll you linked but still less recent than the poll I linked.
Right, sorry, I should have thanked you too!
It's just that my and Kate's old links showed stats for Republicans specifically, so I was focused on them.
I think SenojRetep has really effectively summed up my feelings on most of these polls.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well, isn't there a pretty tried and true method for getting these sorts of things tested out?
There is, but who has the money to be willing to proceed it legalwise to the Supreme Court?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Which of Kate's links? Her most recent link reported
quote:18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.) * 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
A bit further on is this:
quote:9% of Americans consider themselves to be part of the "Birther" movement
That's the number I was drawing on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's an interesting article in the October 2000 edition of the California Law Review on vote buying. Apparently there are two federal laws that outlaw it, one that outlaws offering a bribe, and one that outlaws accepting it, even if it's just to register to vote. Every individual state also outlaws the practice in state-wide elections.
Interestingly, the article cites a 2000 SCOTUS case, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC where the Supreme Court upheld a limit to individual campaign contributions with nothing more than the legal logic that anything more than that strays into the territory of buying votes. But I really don't see how this all grooves with corporate citizenship and Citizen's United. If corporations are people, and people are limited in the donations they can give, corporations should theoretically be bound the same way, and there's precedent for money equaling bribery, thus, why wouldn't massive efforts undertaken on someone's behalf be tantamount to an illegal campaign contribution? Money isn't just speech, it's also money. I'm not sure I get the legal argument that strips money of it's moneyness and transforms it into only speech.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If only Dagonee still made trips out here, our questions could be answered!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I really miss Dagonee.
Attrition has claimed some valuable contributors here over the last couple years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I recall, Dagonee has gone to some lengths to justify Citizen's United on that other forum. You could read it there.
[ February 04, 2012, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In what way is it attrition? It's just not fun over here anymore.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: In what way is it attrition? It's just not fun over here anymore.
I find it to be quite fun over here. And of course I am not biased on the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
dagonee attritioned himself, he'd have to change his base natural response to confrontational argument in order to post here and not give himself a coronary, haha
though I admit I miss watching him drive himself flipping mad talking to tom
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
He still does that on the other forum Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*rolleyes* I never noticed Dagonee to have a big problem with confrontational argument, Samprimary. I did notice him many times have a problem with 'how can a smart, decent person like you believe something so laughably wicked and stupid' kind of argument, though. Shocker that you'd cast it differently, of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I never noticed Dagonee to have a big problem with confrontational argument, Samprimary.
Dagonee would drive himself crazy over certain topics and personalities. His interactions with tom davidson in particular degraded to the point of the surreal and is a potent example of why the ignore button was invented and should routinely be advised for some. This is independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not, but those winds blew both ways. It is better that he is not here and he knows it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*snort* Good thing you're here to speak for his behavior!
And, no, it wasn't certain topics. It was certain topics when pursued in certain ways, which is actually quite different. You'll pardon me for assuming your statement wasn't independent of any judgment, when you characterized his beef as a problem with 'confrontational argument', Samprimary.
Don't get me wrong, I dig why you approach it that way: you're a known (and often funny) fan of the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" approach. Someone who doesn't play that sort of schtick is unlikely to appeal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That .. would be relevant if I thought dagonee was stupid, or if I would mind at all if he thought it was time to come back. You have an odd way of white-knighting the guy, but, okay! I'm glad to have gotten both a rolleyes and a snort out of you.
quote:And, no, it wasn't certain topics.
Yes. It was.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Don't get me wrong, I dig why you approach it that way: you're a known (and often funny) fan of the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" approach. Someone who doesn't play that sort of schtick is unlikely to appeal.
Heh, that is a pretty good characterization.
At least, it seems that way to someone who's often a target of said approach (but laughs anyway, because you are quite funny and your opinion of me isn't terribly high on my list of concerns).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't mind the characterization at all; we've had plenty of hilariously idiotic individuals scootch on through and even get stuck in the drain. Good times, good times.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Zing!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Bangarang!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except that I and I'm sure others can remember clearly discussions on some of those topics you're definitely thinking of that went along in spite of disagreement, but did so in forum-safety.
I didn't say you thought he was stupid, but thinking someone is stupid doesn't seem to be a requirement for your approach either. I don't believe you think, for example, Dan is stupid but go ahead and tell me you don't talk to him that way?
Anyway, I'm not white-knighting (ugh) him, I was criticizing your unfair attack. And by the way, you're contradicting yourself-you just said it was better without him here, and even that he knew it too.
Oh, and another thing that I saw happen more than once (and still does, over there) is the approach as though the default assumption is that he's got some explaining to do-not so much to discover his position, but to get him to defend it from the back of his heel right away.
Heh. I just think it's pretty amusing to have that sort of thing described as 'confrontational argument'. I suppose much of it has to do with whether your listeners agree with you already or not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You're the one that brought up the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" 'approach.' I pointed out how it's not relevant to Dagonee when I don't think Dagonee is stupid. You chose a poor direction against me.
quote:And by the way, you're contradicting yourself-you just said it was better without him here, and even that he knew it too.
I'm glad that you feel compelled to stand up for Dagonee, but you need to do it without dud charges. I've said nothing that contradicts that.
quote:Heh. I just think it's pretty amusing to have that sort of thing described as 'confrontational argument'.
That you saw this thing happen more than once does not make it what I am describing. Nor, more to the point, does it make the case that it must be what I am describing. Note how I said: "This is independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not" — my attitude does not hinge on the idea that Dagonee was never subject to this approach, so we're up to dud charge no. 3.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's relevant not based on whether or not you think he's stupid, but whether or not you're a fan of that particular approach. You clearly are, which is why I'm less than surprised to hear you characterize it as 'confrontational argument'. So, not a dud.
I'm glad you felt compelled to criticize him, too-I mean seriously, you can't expect that to stick when we're both talking about someone who isn't here. And I gave examples of contradiction-characterizing his problem as with 'confrontational argument', saying it's better he's not here, so on. Not-misfire #2.
As for #3, like I said, it's not irrelevant. If you wanted to back off your characterization of 'confrontational argument', perhaps it'd be less relevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You clearly are, which is why I'm less than surprised to hear you characterize it as 'confrontational argument'.
quote:characterizing his problem as with 'confrontational argument',
quote:your characterization of 'confrontational argument',
*laugh*
Okay, you tell me: what is my characterization of 'confrontational argument.'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny. Dagonee, experienced lawyer-simply cannot handle confrontational argument. Heh.
I can't say what your standard for that is, but if you still stick to your guns that the kind of thing that prompted his departure was merely 'confrontational argument', then your use of the term is bunk.
But again, as I said, if your standard for that IS 'man, how do you believe something so stupid and funny!' well then you're still wrong, but I understand why.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's not really telling me what my characterization is, but, eh.
quote:Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny.
It was funny! Though it got a little surreal between him and Tom Davidson, as I noted.
quote: but if you still stick to your guns that the kind of thing that prompted his departure was merely 'confrontational argument', then your use of the term is bunk.
Only if you seriously think that confrontational arguments had nothing to do with his departure.
Anyway.
quote:And I gave examples of contradiction
No, really — when you read what I said, I'm not contradicting myself. To make it clear, do you want to bring up the quotes of where you think I am?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is precisely what I'm talking about: describing the sorts of things that most drove Dagonee nuts, and away, as 'confrontational argument' is about as accurate as describing a man being beaten to death as a boxing match. There's confrontation in both, but to baldly describe it as a 'confrontation' is just silly.
Again, if you want to qualify that statement-that his problem was with 'confrontational arguments'-fine. Until then, though, you're full of it. And I mean that in the nicest, most humorous way possible!
This kind of conversation, actually, is the sort of thing that drove him away. Such as patronizing laughter, casual presumption of superiority, 'light-hearted' mockery, so on and so forth. Casting him as an oversensitive tantrum-thrower who can't tolerate 'confrontational argument'. I've seen him, many times and on many subjects, participate in a confrontational argument calmly. Others have too, I've no doubt. What I rarely saw, however, was him responding with a laugh to being patronized.
Which is just gosh, WEIRD, I know, Samprimary, but still, some people are just crazy like that!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is precisely what I'm talking about
Pots and kettles, buddy You've concluded this argument for yourself and will tell yourself that I'm full of it ... based on duds. Which is why I want to see you try to show me contradicting myself (and why, I suspect, you're not taking me up on it).
quote: Casting him as an oversensitive tantrum-thrower who can't tolerate 'confrontational argument'.
oversensitive tantrum-thrower, eh? Now that's interesting. I wonder what else I didn't say that you'll say for me!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For starters, you first said it was better that he's gone and that he knows it too. Contradiction. You also said his problem was with 'confrontational argument', but that it was independent of judgment. Contradiction, unless we're supposed to believe 'unable to handle confrontation' is meant to be neutral or even complimentary.
So, the reason why I'm not doing it is because I did, and when I did, your explanations were bunk. C'mon, Samprimary, tell me again how that's independent of who was at fault. 'The wind blew both ways', right. But it's better he's gone, so perhaps more one way than another. And he couldn't handle confrontational argument...
As for what you didn't say. Dude. Are we going to pretend you have to explicitly say something to say it? *You?* Serious question, Samprimary. You said he left because he couldn't deal with confrontational argument. Tell me you have to specifically make any of the numerous criticisms associated with that in order to have done so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For starters, you first said it was better that he's gone and that he knows it too. Contradiction.
That doesn't make any sense. It's not a contradiction.
quote:You also said his problem was with 'confrontational argument', but that it was independent of judgment. Contradiction, unless we're supposed to believe 'unable to handle confrontation' is meant to be neutral or even complimentary.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I said "independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not" — which is true, considering that being incompatible with an online community doesn't have to be your fault. You took that and cleaved it down to "independent of [any] judgment [on Sam's part]."
I think you are a smart guy, I really don't want to think you can't look at this and see that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny. Dagonee, experienced lawyer-simply cannot handle confrontational argument. Heh.
He was gone from this forum not that long after passing the bar. He was nt an "experienced lawyer" at that time, as far as I recall.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a contradiction not with itself, but with other statements you made-specifically, you'd be ambivalent on whether or not he decided to participate again. You said that *after* saying it was better he was gone. So look, you can flatly state that nothing you've said is contradictory all you like.
Now that you're actually explaining yourself a bit better, yes, there is less or even no contradiction. Kind of what I was asking for from the start. Your initial claim, that his problem was with 'confrontational argument', was absurd. It needed substantial explanation before it bordered on the realm of fact. That you can claim you *weren't* saying anything critical or finding fault when you said that...
I know you know words better than that, Samprimary. I also am fairly certain you, personally, would have at least a little less respect for someone if they couldn't handle confrontational argument. So for pity's sake, cut the crap. You're super clever and aloof and witty, we all get it.
quote:I think you are a smart guy, I really don't want to think you can't look at this and see that.
Ugh. I would respond with what I actually think to being called stupid in such a patronizing way, if I weren't pretty convinced your insult would be excused and permitted whereas my response would not. Case in point: THAT sort of 'confrontational argument' was reliably something that, yes, drove him nuts. So if that was your intent, well done I suppose but would add that it's indistinguishable from your usual style of dispute here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's a contradiction not with itself, but with other statements you made-specifically, you'd be ambivalent on whether or not he decided to participate again. You said that *after* saying it was better he was gone. So look, you can flatly state that nothing you've said is contradictory all you like.
I can, because they're not contradictory.
These statements:
quote:It is better that he is not here and he knows it.
quote:That .. would be relevant if I thought dagonee was stupid, or if I would mind at all if he thought it was time to come back
Are not contradictory. I seriously would not care a whit if he decided to stress himself out by coming back here, because it's not like it bothers me in any way. And I can say that while readily surmising that there was good reason for him to stop posting here.
You can take above part of post ^ and run through it all you like. I think you should admit that the "contradiction" was a result of your own misreading of me. I think you should also not try to twist your own misreading against me. I will call you on it!
quote:Now that you're actually explaining yourself a bit better, yes, there is less or even no contradiction.
You're getting there. It is "no contradiction."
quote:So for pity's sake, cut the crap. You're super clever and aloof and witty, we all get it.
To defend myself and clarify myself against attacks by a person who is trying equally as hard (if not more, really, at this point!) to be witty, aloof, patronizing, and all of the things you are throwing at me in order to make this about my attitude and the way I choose to present myself on this forum isn't something you can wave away with "cut the crap." Especially not when, as I have demonstrated, you're trying that by making charges that don't stick.
You may continue to try strenuously to make this a referendum on my behavior. It's no longer really about whether I'm right about an ex-poster. It's about how much I annoy you. You may think this as patronizing as you like.
quote:Ugh. I would respond with what I actually think to being called stupid in such a patronizing way
Stop it. I don't think you're stupid. Your mind-reading has been awry from the start of this teapot-tempest!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you don't think I am stupid, then perhaps you should choose your words such that they don't so thoroughly convey that specific message. By all means, call me on what you like, but if you're interested in a straightforward conversation, do it plainly. Cut this s*%t of 'you're smart, I don't want to think you can't get this'. You're not in a position to be so patronizing to nearly anyone here.
But if you'll not even admit that that sort of remark is anytjing less than an insult, there's as little point as I expected in this conversation. I'll simply drop it and go back to trying to consciously not mind slights such as that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll simply drop it and go back to trying to consciously not mind slights such as that.
It works pretty well for me!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It works pretty well for me!
Yeah, it really does. Your skill at not-getting-angry-at-Sam is pretty much unparalleled, from what I've seen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're not in a position to be so patronizing to nearly anyone here.
Oh? You bent my words by accident. Indeed, you assumed contradictions where there were none (which, I hope, you can see now). And all the while indulging conspicuously in a patronizing tone right from the start, yet, this? I easily find no relevance to your arbitration over who's in a 'position' to act in what ways, due to the, .. I guess unintending hypocrisy.
quote: If you don't think I am stupid, then perhaps you should choose your words such that they don't so thoroughly convey that specific message.
Like I said in advance, because by now I (sadly) saw it coming: I think you should also not try to twist your own misreading against me.
quote:But if you'll not even admit that that sort of remark is anytjing less than an insult ...
It could easily be read as an insult. You jumped straight to insisting I'm calling you stupid, and you can ask me as many times as you want if that is accurate (It's not). What it is is a response to actions and accusations on your behalf I am rightly disappointed by, and had every right to respond to — over me correctly pointing out that you have twisted my words in a way I shouldn't have to defend — quite assuredly something I don't want to think you can't see for yourself when I point it out, and with good reason. It's like if I catch someone telling lies about me, and then I say "I'm very disappointed in you, aren't you more honest than that?" and then they just hinge on, oh, insults now?
I think you're just showing to me that when you're posting when frustrated at me, you'll get stuck in this sort of mode unless I speak to you like a robot, in short and emotionally mute declarative sentences. Which is, I guess, what I should do if you're going to aggress the same against me for being the Unworthy Patronizer either way, just with one way leaving much less room for circles and circles of mind-reading and misrepresentation derailment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Back on topic, I've got to admit, a part of me admires Santorum's willingness to say 'markets are great!' to a woman with a sick child at a campaign event. I think that kind of unregulated ideal I think he goes for is stupid and wicked, but I wouldn't have expected even someone so far right to have just come right out and said that, there and then.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll simply drop it and go back to trying to consciously not mind slights such as that.
It works pretty well for me!
You leveled it up fast after loggerheads over tea party, breitbart, et al. You might soon qualify for Grandmaster status.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So Romney won Nevada, and predictably, the media descended to shower him with congratulations and calls that he's on a roll, and that Gingrich should just give up because he was crushed, and they can't understand why he would even consider keeping up his campaign.
I really don't know why I'm any more annoyed this year than I was four years ago (and I was pretty annoyed four years ago). Just something about how the media keeps saying it's all over after one, and two, and three, and four, and now five elections, and for real this time because Romney actually won two in a row!.
But if you look at the actual numbers, and not the percentages of the victories, it's barely anything at all. Something like 28,000 people voted in the Nevada primary. Romney beat Gingrich by 8,000 votes. The separation between second, third and fourth place was another five thousand votes.
The fact that the media calls that any sort of blowout or mandate defies logic. Smarter reporters that are actually looking at Gingrich and Paul's strategy know they are looking to use the GOP convention rules to get nominated from the floor of the committee, they just need to pick up a certain number of delegates along the way. Eventually it all adds up, and it might even add up fast enough for the three non-Romneys to pool their delegates together and push one of them over the finish line. At the very least, it could turn the Tampa convention into a Charlie Foxtrot.
I'm not even sure why the media is so interested in ending this thing. The longer the campaigns drag on, the more stories they have. Yet they keep rushing to proclaim it all over just because five states have had their say. You know, there were a series of court cases in the 1950s in southern states where black voters sued the Democratic Party because they were (at the time legally) excluded from Democratic Primaries. They used the argument that since the Democratic candidate was destined to win the nomination, that excluding them from voting was an illegal denial of their right to vote. And they won! I wonder how far I'd get if I sued for a right to vote in the New Hampshire primary, since no one after the first half dozen states even matters anymore.
I think it's interesting that in the demographic breakdown, Romney didn't take almost any of the "poor" vote. It was split between Paul and Gingrich. Looks like Romney's poor gaffes are having an effect, though I question how much it matters for the election since the poor disproportionately stay home on election day.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even sure why the media is so interested in ending this thing.
They're not. It's like the furniture stores with the perpetual going-out-of-business-sale signs.
Headlines or summaries that make a big deal out of a primary mean a story more likely to be read. "Today's primary indicated that presidential hopefuls remain about where they were last week" -- not so much.
Also, as an added bonus, if they keep saying it's over, X or Y has it in the bag, eventually they'll be right. Later, they can say, "as we predicted ____ weeks/months ago". Ignoring all the times they were wrong, naturally.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure, but they have immense power over the process itself. It's impossible to say that their reporting hasn't had an affect on the voting. If it really is all over tomorrow, they have nothing to report on for four months. Wouldn't it make more sense to play up the underdog angle of the other candidates and give them some face time rather than pigeonhole them and treat Romney like the heir apparent?
Otherwise, yeah, I agree.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, somehow the media has convinced all the candidates, and the states in question, that Iowa and New Hampshire are such the end-all-be-all of states to win, that the residents *expect to meet candidates in person*, and yet the winners of those contests bear no discernable pattern when compared with the winners of nomination battles.
I would imagine the biggest effect the media has is on financing. You get written up as a lost cause, and maybe ornery old man JeeWillikers doesn't write a cheque to your campaign this month.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The mention of GW Bush was spookily prescient. I really don't remember what 1998 was like politically, it's too long ago to really remember the feel. This is in honor of the SNL cold open from either last week or the week before that showed Newt Gingrich in charge of the moon colony in 2014 after Obama allowed the earth to be blown up by nuclear weapons.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, Bob Livingston. He lasted about 1 second as speaker, if I recall.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, Bob Livingston. He lasted about 1 second as speaker, if I recall.
A Livingston of speaker, a Kardishan of marriage
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even sure why the media is so interested in ending this thing. The longer the campaigns drag on, the more stories they have. Yet they keep rushing to proclaim it all over just because five states have had their say.
Politico had an interesting take on this phenomenon. Apparently, having Secret Service protection has given Romney an air of inevitability, like he's now the "official" candidate. Whether or not this is total hogwash, I don't know. Politico tends to write stories from interesting angles you don't often see elsewhere.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Not about the primaries, but this Super Bowl ad from Michigan's Republican candidate for Senate is racially weird:
You can tell he knows it, too, from the way he says "I approve this message." He's like "Yeah, I approve this shit, bitches! Deal with it."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't know, man. He wants to make a point about China. How should he have portrayed it? An angry voiceover showing graphs of China outsourcing or something?
I mean I agree there's a bit of cringe factor but I'm not sure it's fair to put that on him.
If we were outsourcing jobs to Germany, and he had a white guy with a German accent saying the same spiel, would it still be racially weird?
I don't particularly agree with his gripe in the first place, but I think saying he's trying for a racial angle is unfair. Nationality ≠ Race, even though there are obvious correlations in places outside of Europe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Weird.
Are we outsourcing to Asian Americans with strong American accents on vacation in Vietnam now?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Weird.
Are we outsourcing to Asian Americans with strong American accents on vacation in Vietnam now?
Maybe just the really hot ones?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't know, man. He wants to make a point about China. How should he have portrayed it? An angry voiceover showing graphs of China outsourcing or something?
Seriously? A girl riding a bicycle next to a rice paddy talking in fake pigeon English and, pardon a fitting expression, "chinky" music playing in the background? I agree he wants to make a point about China ( or Vietnam, et al). That point just happens to be: Asians are bad, and my opponent likes Asians (because Asians apparently like her...).
Were you ever shown the vile propaganda produced in America during the first and second world wars?
quote: If we were outsourcing jobs to Germany, and he had a white guy with a German accent saying the same spiel, would it still be racially weird?
In a word, yes. Especially if that German was, say, standing next to the Hoffbrauhaus, licking a weinersnitzel, with polka on in the background, and saying, das ist var gut dis Amerikaunach money!! Ve ist likingk ze Frieulein Debby for zis!"
Yeah, it's racist. The fact that Germans aren't the victims of many American racial stereotypes is not an excuse for perpetrating stereotypes against Asians. I don't even begin to grasp that logic.
ETA: Incidentally, yours is a relatively common error. The fact that some racial groups, particularly politically and economically powerful ones (such as Germans and Americans) do not suffer from racial stereotyping, or do not even seem to *mind* the occasional offense, is not an indication that racist attitudes and imagery are not offensive. Rather, it's an indication that the party being insulted is relatively secure in its own sense of superiority, and is politically and economically empowered.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Asian Americans with strong American accents and inexplicably bad grammar, apparently. "Debbie spend so much American money... your economy get very weak."
I can't believe they actually found an Asian girl to be in the ad, in the first place.
Dan, the cringe factor is what I meant. That feeling that it would be really weird and awkward to be watching the ad in the same room with your Asian friends. That's you being sensitive, and the guy who made the ad being insensitive.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: In a word, yes. Especially if that German was, say, standing next to the Hoffbrauhaus, licking a weinersnitzel, with polka on in the background, and saying, das ist var gut dis Amerikaunach money!! Ve ist likingk ze Frieulein Debby for zis!"
You know, that's not far away from what sometimes happens in the UK. Germans can still get some flack from the 'Don't Mention The War' brigade. And yes, it's racist - or at least some variety of -ist (I mean like if you are a black German, I don't think you'll ever get that kind of anti-German abuse).
That advert stinks, though. I guess he just lost the Asian vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Not about the primaries, but this Super Bowl ad from Michigan's Republican candidate for Senate is racially weird:
that commercial is some seriously poe's law stuff right there
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we were outsourcing jobs to Germany, and he had a white guy with a German accent saying the same spiel, would it still be racially weird?
In a word, yes. Especially if that German was, say, standing next to the Hoffbrauhaus, licking a weinersnitzel, with polka on in the background, and saying, das ist var gut dis Amerikaunach money!! Ve ist likingk ze Frieulein Debby for zis!"
Yeah, it's racist. The fact that Germans aren't the victims of many American racial stereotypes is not an excuse for perpetrating stereotypes against Asians. I don't even begin to grasp that logic.
ETA: Incidentally, yours is a relatively common error. The fact that some racial groups, particularly politically and economically powerful ones (such as Germans and Americans) do not suffer from racial stereotyping, or do not even seem to *mind* the occasional offense, is not an indication that racist attitudes and imagery are not offensive. Rather, it's an indication that the party being insulted is relatively secure in its own sense of superiority, and is politically and economically empowered.
Okay. So if someone was making an ad about a southern state trying to pass a bad law, and their ad has a very rednecky guy saying something while Dixie played in the background, that's racist too, right?
Because being Southern is a race, now.
Edit: Also, after reading your edit, I see that "American" is also a race. Good to know!
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Asian Americans with strong American accents and inexplicably bad grammar, apparently. "Debbie spend so much American money... your economy get very weak."
I can't believe they actually found an Asian girl to be in the ad, in the first place.
Dan, the cringe factor is what I meant. That feeling that it would be really weird and awkward to be watching the ad in the same room with your Asian friends. That's you being sensitive, and the guy who made the ad being insensitive.
If the friend I was with was from China, then yeah. If they were, say, a fifth generation Korean American, then no, I think if they got upset about the commercial I'd probably argue with 'em same as I am with you guys.
Conflating nationality or culture with race is fundamentally a really wrong way to go about discussing these sorts of things. What's more, it's incredibly common. It's also really easy to conflate when you're looking at a monoracial culture.
Cultural stereotypes aren't good, and I guess I'm being misunderstood enough that I should explicitly state that I think that. But racial stereotypes are way, way, way worse in my opinion.
It's the difference between a sort of cringe-worthy dumb generalization (Frenchies don't shower) and a despicable, morally repugnant statement (Black people are stupider than white people).
The ad seems to be an obvious example of the former, not the latter. That's why I objected to implying that it was racist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It does seem to be saying that Chinese people are sneaky and greedy. Is that a morally repugnant statement or merely a dumb generalization.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Really? That's what it's saying? Wow, okay.
I thought it was showing some dumb cultural stereotypes (rice paddies, music, bicycles, as Orincoro pointed out) to clue us in that this was supposed to be China, and then it was saying that China is happy to take outsourced US jobs. I guess you could characterize that as "China is sneaky and greedy" but if you do that you're literally characterizing "China" the anthropomorphized country, not "Chinese people."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think it's an ad that will naturally be off-putting to Asian Americans, in much the same way that an ad with a bunch of goofy African tribesmen acting primitive would be off-putting to African Americans. The fact that the guy making the ad didn't realize this is a sure sign that he's an out-of-touch old white dude. Probably the type who (as Sam says) "has lots of [insert minority here] friends!"
I try to set a high bar for the term "racist," so I'm not going to call it that.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I guess you could characterize that as "China is sneaky and greedy" but if you do that you're literally characterizing "China" the anthropomorphized country, not "Chinese people."
I'd say that seeing a 'Chinese' person grinning widely while she gloatingly says 'We take your jobs!' is pretty damning of Chinese people, not just China. What was that actress thinking?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Actually, let me take something back. Pete Hoekstra probably doesn't have many non-white friends, nor (knowing him) would he even feel obliged to pretend he does.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think it's an ad that will naturally be off-putting to Asian Americans, in much the same way that an ad with a bunch of goofy African tribesmen acting primitive would be off-putting to African Americans. The fact that the guy making the ad didn't realize this is a sure sign that he's an out-of-touch old white dude. Probably the type who (as Sam says) "has lots of [insert minority here] friends!"
I try to set a high bar for the term "racist," so I'm not going to call it that.
I completely agree with this.
Except that I think that the term racist just flat out doesn't apply. Drawing that distinction from this is wrong, in my opinion. (Edit: I don't know anything about the guy but this ad, so if he is a racist based on other stuff, that's fine, I'm not speaking to that)
Cultural stereotypes are used by many people from many groups for many reasons. Broadly speaking, I think they are usually dumb, but they also sometimes contain kernels of truth. Americans are fat and ignorant, etc. Stand-up comics utilize them constantly, sometimes to great effect (sometimes not so much) because when those kernels of truth are lampooned, it's legitimately funny.
The reason I see the distinction as so important is because I think it is perfectly acceptable to criticize cultures. Not stereotypes, but cultural trends (from which stereotypes sometimes spring). Most cultures have flaws, and I don't think that embracing those flaws because they are part of your culture is a good thing. Criticizing a race is horrible and wrongheaded, because their race does not give someone a background of theories and beliefs the way their culture does.
Again, the distinction I'm drawing between racial and cultural stereotypes seems to get ignored a lot, especially in places where a given culture or subculture is monoracial or mostly monoracial. In this day and age, it seems hard to criticize a monoracial culture without getting branded as racist or intolerant or hateful.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we were outsourcing jobs to Germany, and he had a white guy with a German accent saying the same spiel, would it still be racially weird?
In a word, yes. Especially if that German was, say, standing next to the Hoffbrauhaus, licking a weinersnitzel, with polka on in the background, and saying, das ist var gut dis Amerikaunach money!! Ve ist likingk ze Frieulein Debby for zis!"
Yeah, it's racist. The fact that Germans aren't the victims of many American racial stereotypes is not an excuse for perpetrating stereotypes against Asians. I don't even begin to grasp that logic.
ETA: Incidentally, yours is a relatively common error. The fact that some racial groups, particularly politically and economically powerful ones (such as Germans and Americans) do not suffer from racial stereotyping, or do not even seem to *mind* the occasional offense, is not an indication that racist attitudes and imagery are not offensive. Rather, it's an indication that the party being insulted is relatively secure in its own sense of superiority, and is politically and economically empowered.
Okay. So if someone was making an ad about a southern state trying to pass a bad law, and their ad has a very rednecky guy saying something while Dixie played in the background, that's racist too, right?
Because being Southern is a race, now.
Edit: Also, after reading your edit, I see that "American" is also a race. Good to know!
IF you're not prepared to discuss this in good faith, we don't have to discuss it at all.
Stereotyping is stereotyping. Be it ethnic or nationalistic. I specifically employed the phrase "racial groups," and included "American," as a shorthand for the shared cultural background of Americans- specifically to point out that Americans, and perhaps I should add, specifically Caucasian and Scandinavian descended Americans, by dint of shared national heritage, do not suffer much from racial stereotyping specifically because they are and have been a dominant majority. What racial stereotyping that was prevalent amongst white Americans, such as against the Irish and Germans, has abated to a large degree in the past half century.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: I guess you could characterize that as "China is sneaky and greedy" but if you do that you're literally characterizing "China" the anthropomorphized country, not "Chinese people."
I'd say that seeing a 'Chinese' person grinning widely while she gloatingly says 'We take your jobs!' is pretty damning of Chinese people, not just China. What was that actress thinking?
Either she's thinking "I'm glad I can pay rent next month thanks to this stupid job for this racist oaf!" or she's thinking "I wish people would stop assuming I owe some sort of allegiance to China just because I'm racially Chinese! Go Pete!"
Either way I don't bear her any ill will.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Really? That's what it's saying? Wow, okay.
I thought it was showing some dumb cultural stereotypes (rice paddies, music, bicycles, as Orincoro pointed out) to clue us in that this was supposed to be China, and then it was saying that China is happy to take outsourced US jobs. I guess you could characterize that as "China is sneaky and greedy" but if you do that you're literally characterizing "China" the anthropomorphized country, not "Chinese people."
That's seems rather coy. The overt stereotyping appeals to racial fears and race hatred. The foreign is cast as scheming and backwards- which in the history of American media portrayals of Asians, has a *rich* tradition dating back to early cinema. And If that is not intentional, then it is the most unintentionally offensive bit of advertising I've seen in quite a while.
American media and film have used the Asian female as a shorthand for moral depravity since the days of Anna May Wong. It's only in recent history that this has changed significantly. An image like this is not just "setting the stage," or invoking the idea of China. It is invoking the image of the evil dowager empress, of the Vietnamese prostitute who represents the moral decay of society in Full Metal Jacket, or a hundred other images laced into American culture. It appeals to every other image you've ever been exposed to. I know, I know. You'll say: what does a person do who just wants to represent the idea of a Chinese person? I don't know, to be honest. There is so much poison in these images, that I don't really know what could be done to accomplish that.
[ February 06, 2012, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: I guess you could characterize that as "China is sneaky and greedy" but if you do that you're literally characterizing "China" the anthropomorphized country, not "Chinese people."
I'd say that seeing a 'Chinese' person grinning widely while she gloatingly says 'We take your jobs!' is pretty damning of Chinese people, not just China. What was that actress thinking?
Either she's thinking "I'm glad I can pay rent next month thanks to this stupid job for this racist oaf!" or she's thinking "I wish people would stop assuming I owe some sort of allegiance to China just because I'm racially Chinese! Go Pete!" .
She was thinking that, as she was using her appearance, and a pigeon accent to convey the notion that she was Chinese- and loved China.
I'm sorry... WHAT??
[ February 06, 2012, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we were outsourcing jobs to Germany, and he had a white guy with a German accent saying the same spiel, would it still be racially weird?
In a word, yes. Especially if that German was, say, standing next to the Hoffbrauhaus, licking a weinersnitzel, with polka on in the background, and saying, das ist var gut dis Amerikaunach money!! Ve ist likingk ze Frieulein Debby for zis!"
Yeah, it's racist. The fact that Germans aren't the victims of many American racial stereotypes is not an excuse for perpetrating stereotypes against Asians. I don't even begin to grasp that logic.
ETA: Incidentally, yours is a relatively common error. The fact that some racial groups, particularly politically and economically powerful ones (such as Germans and Americans) do not suffer from racial stereotyping, or do not even seem to *mind* the occasional offense, is not an indication that racist attitudes and imagery are not offensive. Rather, it's an indication that the party being insulted is relatively secure in its own sense of superiority, and is politically and economically empowered.
Okay. So if someone was making an ad about a southern state trying to pass a bad law, and their ad has a very rednecky guy saying something while Dixie played in the background, that's racist too, right?
Because being Southern is a race, now.
Edit: Also, after reading your edit, I see that "American" is also a race. Good to know!
IF you're not prepared to discuss this in good faith, we don't have to discuss it at all.
As always, this is true. I'm not likely to change my posting style, so if you find it intolerable we can always table this discussion like the last one.
That being said...
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Stereotyping is stereotyping. Be it ethnic or nationalistic. I specifically employed the phrase "racial groups," and included "American," as a shorthand for the shared cultural background of Americans- specifically to point out that Americans, and perhaps I should add, specifically Caucasian and Scandinavian descended Americans, by dint of shared national heritage, do not suffer much from racial stereotyping specifically because they are and have been a dominant majority. What racial stereotyping that was prevalent amongst white Americans, such as against the Irish and Germans, has abated to a large degree in the past half century.
You did mention Americans, that's true. I'm not sure you've really addressed my question, though. I want to make sure I am correctly understanding you. So, anyone who says "Americans are fat" is a racist, right?
By extension, anyone who says "Southerners are dumb" is also a racist, yeah?
Let me go further: Anyone who says "Texans are arrogant" is a racist, too. Right? Or does that one push it too far?
If not, now we've just got it down to the state someone chooses to live in. What about another culture a person can choose to join. What if someone says "Christians don't know how to think critically," is that person also a racist?
Here's another culture someone can choose to join: Is someone who says "Republicans are racists" also a racist?
Here's a different angle. "White people are racists." Is that a racist thing to say?
In case Orincoro chooses not to respond, if anyone else disagreed with my distinction between culture and race above, what are your answers to the questions in this post? Genuinely curious.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I know, I know. You'll say: what does a person do who just wants to represent the idea of a Chinese person? I don't know, to be honest. There is so much poison in these images, that I don't really know what could be done to accomplish that.
Thank you for acknowledging this. I think it's a pretty important point, that you're not sure it is physically possible for the man to have conveyed what he wanted to convey ("China is taking US jobs and I am not happy about this") without people interpreting it as appealing to race hatred and subconscious racist imagery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, there is a way. You just say it. If you're interested in *just* saying that. If you're interested in conveying quite a lot more than that, there are obviously ways.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: You did mention Americans, that's true. I'm not sure you've really addressed my question, though. I want to make sure I am correctly understanding you. So, anyone who says "Americans are fat" is a racist, right?
By extension, anyone who says "Southerners are dumb" is also a racist, yeah?
Let me go further: Anyone who says "Texans are arrogant" is a racist, too. Right? Or does that one push it too far?
If it isn't an appeal to racial stereotypes, then it's not racism. I was clear on that. It *is* stereotyping. Stereotyping exists outside of racial stereotyping.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Nobody is forcing anyone to make the kind of ad that features a mustache-twirling villain saying "Good thing Congressman Joe Blow is playing right into my hands and ruining America! Thanks, Joe Blow!"
I think part of Orincoro's point is that that type of ad is inherently nasty anyway. That doesn't make it against the law or anything, but it does mean you can't make an ad like that without coming across like the dick you are.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By extension, anyone who says "Southerners are dumb" is also a racist, yeah?
No, such a person is not racist (a jerk, maybe). Living in the South is a choice. Your parentage is not.
quote:Let me go further: Anyone who says "Texans are arrogant" is a racist, too. Right? Or does that one push it too far?
See above.
quote:If not, now we've just got it down to the state someone chooses to live in. What about another culture a person can choose to join. What if someone says "Christians don't know how to think critically," is that person also a racist?
See above.
quote:Here's another culture someone can choose to join: Is someone who says "Republicans are racists" also a racist?
See above.
(Do you notice a trend occurring?)
quote:Here's a different angle. "White people are racists." Is that a racist thing to say?
Yes, that is a racist thing to say. It also doesn't have anywhere near the historical baggage of saying something like, "Chinese people are sneaky job-stealers," or "Black people are subhuman idiots."
And yes, historical baggage matters - especially considering the history we're talking about is really very recent.
Edited to add: Let me turn it back on you. Let's say I put together an ad that shows a white Anglo-Saxon in a cowboy hat beating a black man with a whip. Let's say that the white man then turns to the camera and says, "You know me. I'm the guy that's coming for your family. I'm going to place your kids in servitude and force you to work for no money. That's just the kind of guy I am."
Are you seriously going to claim that such an ad ISN'T intended to scare black viewers by drawing on stereotypical images that convey an image of "white people" as being abusive slavemongers? Are you seriously going to defend this ad by saying, "Well, they didn't explicitly SAY that the white dude was supposed to represent white folks in general"? That the message of the ad is somehow "Well, you gotta watch out for THIS SPECIFIC WHITE GUY," and not "All white people hate you because you're black"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Nobody is forcing anyone to make the kind of ad that features a mustache-twirling villain saying "Good thing Congressman Joe Blow is playing right into my hands and ruining America! Thanks, Joe Blow!"
I think part of Orincoro's point is that that type of ad is inherently nasty anyway. That doesn't make it against the law or anything, but it does mean you can't make an ad like that without coming across like the dick you are.
Oh, absolutely. I agree!
But the mustache twirling villain in the piece is China, not Chinese people. "China gets too many outsourced American jobs" is a much more current, and viscerally upsetting to many people, stereotype than "Those damn coolies are stealing American jobs."
Do you really not see the distinction as important?
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By extension, anyone who says "Southerners are dumb" is also a racist, yeah?
No, such a person is not racist (a jerk, maybe). Living in the South is a choice. Your parentage is not.
What if my parents are Texan? Then is it racist?
Living in China is as much a choice as living in Texas or the South, right?
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Here's a different angle. "White people are racists." Is that a racist thing to say?
Yes, that is a racist thing to say. It also doesn't have anywhere near the historical baggage of saying something like, "Chinese people are sneaky job-stealers," or "Black people are subhuman idiots."
And yes, historical baggage matters - especially considering the history we're talking about is really very recent.
As I said above, the idea of China stealing American jobs via outsourcing is much more recent than "Chinese people are sneaky job stealers."
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Edited to add: Let me turn it back on you. Let's say I put together an ad that shows a white Anglo-Saxon in a cowboy hat beating a black man with a whip. Let's say that the white man then turns to the camera and says, "You know me. I'm the guy that's coming for your family. I'm going to place your kids in servitude and force you to work for no money. That's just the kind of guy I am."
Are you seriously going to claim that such an ad ISN'T intended to scare black viewers by drawing on stereotypical images that convey an image of "white people" as being abusive slavemongers? Are you seriously going to defend this ad by saying, "Well, they didn't explicitly SAY that the white dude was supposed to represent white folks in general"? That the message of the ad is somehow "Well, you gotta watch out for THIS SPECIFIC WHITE GUY," and not "All white people hate you because you're black"?
You've totally misrepresented my assessment of the ad. I'm not saying the Chinese woman is just that specific Chinese woman. She absolutely stands in for something. I think she very obviously stands in for the nation of China, not for "Chinese people" in general.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I remember an ad which was set in a very posh Chinese university classroom, I forget the exact message though. Something about how awesome China was while America declined and they have their jobs now.
edit 2: Oh man, how just wrong it is, China arguably spent more money (and better) on getting out and avoiding its recession. They actually hurt the people responsible for their housing bubble instead of the people through the efforts to cool off the economy/bubble.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm surprised it took so long for you to look in this thread, Blayne! I assumed that you'd installed some sort of antennae that began tingling whenever anyone mentioned China. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was out seeing The Grey with my mother and working on my artwork before that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, was Blayne's commercial racist? Once again I see the Chinese teacher as an obvious stand-in for the nation of China, and yes, he (China) is cast in a nefarious light. But I still don't see it as particularly racist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would say that its reflective of a particularly deep xenophobia and an appeal to populist demagoguery on the part of the makers and supporters of the ads. Not racism but certainly scare tactics.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm pretty sure that this is the same Peter Hoekstra who as head of the House Intelligence committee came out with Rick Santorum to claim that we'd found WMDs in Iraq and then, when the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus disputed this, said that this was because they were pushing a political agenda of helping al Queda.
This guy's a real winner.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think it's an ad that will naturally be off-putting to Asian Americans, in much the same way that an ad with a bunch of goofy African tribesmen acting primitive would be off-putting ...
Probably even moreso, since this is Michigan:
quote:... it also evoked the specter of Vincent Chin, the Chinese American who was killed 30 years ago by a Detroit-area auto plant superintendent who thought Chin was Japanese. This was during the period of American paranoia about Japanese domination of business, especially the automobile industry. The killer allegedly said to Chin, ""It's because of you little m***s that we're out of work!" even though Chin was not Japanese. Chin was beaten to death and the perpetrators were given very lenient sentences for what is in my view, a hate-based and pre-meditated crime.
[ February 06, 2012, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm pretty sure that this is the same Peter Hoekstra who as head of the House Intelligence committee came out with Rick Santorum to claim that we'd found WMDs in Iraq and then, when the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus disputed this, said that this was because they were pushing a political agenda of helping al Queda.
This guy's a real winner.
Yeah, same guy. A real winner in every sense. I largely grew up in his House district. It seems like he's the dud candidate who drew the short straw and got set up in front of a tough incumbent, so hopefully he won't make much trouble.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, was Blayne's commercial racist? Once again I see the Chinese teacher as an obvious stand-in for the nation of China, and yes, he (China) is cast in a nefarious light. But I still don't see it as particularly racist.
That commercial was way less offensive than the Hoekstra one, since it didn't employ negative stereotypes and had the main character speaking eloquently in Chinese.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
See, first and foremost I would characterize it as vastly better done. It's just a better commercial. It gets the same point across, but more effectively.
It manages to make China appear much more sinister, and utilizes less generic vaguely offensive cultural stereotypes.
But its message is fundamentally similar (without all the specifics of that one member of Congress). Do you really disagree?
(Once again, Destineer, I think I mostly agree with what you're saying: The commercial is bad and somewhat offensive for using stupid cultural stereotypes. What I'm vehemently objecting to is the characterization that it is racist)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: But its message is fundamentally similar (without all the specifics of that one member of Congress). Do you really disagree?
No, in fact I think it's an example of what Orincoro was saying: the same message can be communicated better without the racial insensitivity.
Also: Holy crap, there's a whole equally disturbing website.
ching chong ching chong. Hro hro hro. We are conniving china-men.
So anyway, the remaining argument is about, what — that it's not fair to call this racist, it's merely massively racially insensitive and xenophobic as part of a package deal to prey on nationalist and racist fears through ugly socioethnic stereotypes, or
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah he is already getting thrown under the bus, about as fast as he could get on politico to insist that there were no racial overtones in the ad, alongside a little host of extremely dumb damage control excuses, I guess.
quote:Republican political consultant Mike Murphy, who worked for former Gov. John Engler, tweeted Sunday: "Pete Hoekstra Superbowl TV ad in MI Senate race really, really dumb. I mean really."
The Rev. Charles Williams II of the King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit called on Hoekstra to apologize and pull the ad. If he doesn't, Williams said ministers would begin calling Hoekstra's campaign contributors to urge them to withdraw support.
"The imagery in the ad is no different than the folks who had to put blackfaced paint on and tap dance," he said. "This whole thing makes me so sad because Hoekstra really doesn't get it."
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So anyway, the remaining argument is about, what — that it's not fair to call this racist, it's merely massively racially insensitive and xenophobic as part of a package deal to prey on nationalist and racist fears through ugly socioethnic stereotypes, or
Not quite...
Bleh, I would try again but my partner says I should give this one up because nobody cares about the distinction I'm making but me. And that it's not terribly valuable one way or the other because negative cultural stereotypes can be just as bad as racist stereotypes. Upon reflection, I realized that's absolutely right.
Think I'm just arguing the point because, tangentially, I'm tired of people insinuating I'm a racist when I criticize a negative cultural trends. There are times when the distinction I made above between race and culture matters. But criticism isn't the same as stupid grossly wrongheaded mockery, so it doesn't get the same defense.
So I'm comfortable letting this asshat fall under that bus.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think it's about nobody caring about your distinction. Ultimately, this advertisement has notably racist overtones, whether or not Hoekstra's idiot ad group intended to have that be a targetable part of the campaign's overall package. Whether or not those racist overtones and the racist imagery (good lord, they even had her doing chinglishy grammar out there in the nam patties despite the fact she has an obv western accent) are intentional doesn't matter to whether or not the ad ended up racist.
I can't type this out fast enough god here comes the bus here it comes heeeeeeeeeeerrrrree it
quote:GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.
“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done ….”
“Saving America from the Washington, D.C., politicians who gave us this crippling debt and deficit crisis, Republican and Democrat alike, means Hoekstra and Stabenow should both get benched,” [Hoekstra's GOP Senate primary rival Gary] Glenn said in a release.
This got all over the place but quick man
quote:OK, I went into that with an open mind and fully prepared to point out that featuring an Asian in an ad or talking about foreign trade is not inherently racist. But that's one of the most racist (more specifically, xenophobic) things I've seen in a very long time. Wow.
quote:I feel bad for saying this...but that is one of the coolest ****ing websites I've ever been too. Not for the subject, but for the delivery. I don't know why...but I love the design of it all. But I hate that its super racist. UGH THIS IS SO CONFLICTING
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Dan, to elaborate a bit on why the ad is problematic racially as well as xenophobically:
It would be different if the stereotypical Asian accent hadn't taken up the place it has in American racial politics. But in fact, a lot of people use it to make fun of Asian Americans, especially Asian women (like with the Full Metal Jacket "me love you long time" routine; ask any Asian girl how many times she's heard that).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, I think I understand the point you are make by trying to differentiate between racism and cultural stereotyping. I am not sure that you can make that distinction and, when culture and race are as inextricably linked as they are in many culture, I think that it can be dangerous to try. Further, both are likely to be offensive, so why make the effort?
It is nice when political ads appeal to our better nature rather than to the worst in us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It is nice when political ads appeal to our better nature rather than to the worst in us.
Nice, but owing to our human nature, less effective use of campaign dollars.
I still expect we're going to get a boatload more negative ads this go around now that PACs can just flood the world with unaffiliated advertising.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Dan, to elaborate a bit on why the ad is problematic racially as well as xenophobically:
It would be different if the stereotypical Asian accent hadn't taken up the place it has in American racial politics. But in fact, a lot of people use it to make fun of Asian Americans, especially Asian women (like with the Full Metal Jacket "me love you long time" routine; ask any Asian girl how many times she's heard that).
Yeah, that makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, I think I understand the point you are make by trying to differentiate between racism and cultural stereotyping. I am not sure that you can make that distinction and, when culture and race are as inextricably linked as they are in many culture, I think that it can be dangerous to try. Further, both are likely to be offensive, so why make the effort?
It is nice when political ads appeal to our better nature rather than to the worst in us.
Thanks for the bone, I'll scurry back to my den and gnaw on it for the rest of winter.
Seriously, though, I think you're right. Chinese ethnicity and Chinese culture are heavily linked, and the cultural stereotypes that create prejudice against the race are, if anything, even more reprehensible than any pure racism.
It helped me to understand where I was going wrong to consider the particularly awful case of antisemitism, which is another example of racial and cultural stereotypes getting tangled up together.
I think the bottom line for me does boil down to something I said in a previous post: Sometimes, over-sensitivity can cause people to label criticism of a culture as racism, and that irks me.
But that's not really at play here, it was my own baggage that caused me to bring it up. Bad cultural stereotypes (and wrong cultural criticism, for that matter!) can be just as awful and justifiably offensive as racism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thomas Frank needs to write a book entitled, "What's the matter with Kansas, and every other state in the union?"
I mean OK, the options for Republicans are horrible. But, Santorum?!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As often as I'm exasperated by the base of both parties, this is one of the things that makes me quite a bit more scornful of Republicans than Democrats: who they would just *love* to be their guy, if it were possible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I've never met (or read!) a Republican who would love Santorum to be their guy.
I guess I don't know or follow a lot of traditional so-con values voter Republicans, though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I guess I've also never lived in Colorado, Missouri, or Minnesota.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, I didn't expect this.
quote:Missouri Santorum 138,957 55% "Mitt" Romney 63,826 25% Ron Paul 30,641 12%
Didn't see that coming at all. He won all three, rather convincingly if you're just going by percentages. Hell, Paul came in second and beat Romney in Minnesota, that's new. And he absolutely crushed him in Missouri. Interesting that in Missouri, the only state that voted without Gingrich and made it a three person race, Santorum got more than twice as many votes as Romney, and won a clear majority rather than a plurality.
He's officially won the most states, and strung together the most wins in a row. In media-speak, that should make him the winner of the whole thing! It's his game to lose now, it's all over....except not, because I'm sure the media will spin this whole thing to mean something completely different.
Next few weeks should be interesting. Santorum is about to feel the wrath of the Romney attack machine.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Actually come to think of it I don't know of any Republicans that would love any of the nominees (except a few nominally Republican libertarians who love Paul, of course). The most common sentiment I've seen is exasperated, distasteful acceptance.
Not that I think you would much like the candidates they would love, of course! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My dream candidate is Josiah Bartlet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean OK, the options for Republicans are horrible. But, Santorum?!
The republicans that vote for santorum are a distilled essence of the fundie core. They may charitably be described as blatant theocrats. Or was that uncharitably? Nobody knows anymore. If you hammer it out with them, they will admit to being theocratic. The paramount political concern to them — dwarfing all others — is that it be 'reaffirmed,' legally, that this is a christian nation. And it can't be a real christian nation without abiding to a very specific mythoi about god-approved governance and it usually involves low taxes and sink-or-swim social everything. But they are not mere libertarians, for godly government doesn't want to just stop at not being useful to people in need, as there is a dire need to use what funding we do have for wrapping some fairly controlling social regulation in place against the things they fear, resulting in intense biblically-motivated regulations of media, internet, schools, sciences,contraception, the courts, abortion, marriage, approved manner of dress, and whichever countries we go to (holy) war against to make the world a constantly safer place. This, of course, is not a diplomatic way to summarize it, but each little individual piece of it is drafted carefully enough that each individual part can be a link to both charged and neutral assessments to the fact.
They are not all of conservatism, not by far — but they are powerful enough and vital enough a core to wed the entire party to their needs and a constant offering of platitudes and wedge offerings, and Santorum spooks them a little because he is Not of Righteous Clan (catholics ain't christians, you know) but he gets everything else just so right about those scary gays (ew) and atheists and secularists and socialists and caretakers of the sick (double ew) that they're willing to put that aside and give him support over romney, because mormonism is, like, right out, man. More importantly though romney once tried to help poor sick people and that is socialism so he is a big deffo no. Until it is only him versus the kenyan muslim. At which point he will have had his latest political mask on longer than their typical political memory span and will have somehow been elevated up to, if not God's chosen, then God's protest vote. Mysterious ways and all that. But until then, they can't just give it to Romney, they have to amass as much palpable discontent with the at-least-barely-electable candidate to stick up for the guy who has been consistently in favor of their moral entitlements.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Alright, 'like or be satisfied with', then, not 'love'.
I trust you, Dan, to mean what you say, so I do believe you mean that you don't know any, say, Republican Santorum voters or supporters. But it is exasperating, discussing this (much) closer to the center than where the real die-hards live, that it's just a mystery where these wackos and fundies get their support.
They get their support from other wackos and fundies, and yeah, I'm afraid that you almost certainly do know some, just like I do, Dan. At least you know several who if asked it would turn out that while they may not bid on Santorum specifically, they just happen by astounding coincidence to think some of his ideas (gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!) are just spot on.
There's enough of them that they are a powerful, even decisive force every four years, in picking our President. There ain't just a couple of em wrapped around the buckle of the Bible Belt, they're all over the place. There's enough of 'em that only a few years ago, one of the (believed to be) most liberal states in the union amended their Constitution to confirm the inferiority of homosexuals, because everyone knows that, it's in the Bible, duh!
We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
I manage it pretty well. Of course, I work at a university and live and work in the distract where Jan Schakowsky can count on getting better than 70% of the vote without campaigning. I do theatre and sing folk music. Even church is liberal.
I have to come to Hatrack to see conservatives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even given all that, would you say you don't know any?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do "know" a couple through Hatrack, a few people who are really old and not very political. I know a couple of tepid Republicans but can't think of any far-right social conservatives. I probably do but not well enough to know their politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My entire family outside of my parents and brother are all far right social conservatives. Delightful, salt of the earth, loving, people with whackadoodle political ideas. But I rarely talk politics with them.
On the whole though, I spend every day talking with grads students and professors, and then come here, where even the conservatives weigh in at somewhere closer to Mild than FIRE on the Taco Bell Political Spectrum.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Born-again Chinese Christians are the most social conservative folk I typically run into. White social conservatives, not so much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
If your uncle is a 1930s Republican, doesn't that basically make him a 2012 Democrat?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well more like a 1950s Republican but he is from Wisconsin and can't bring himself to believe that the GOP has moved away from him.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My ex cousin-in-law was socially conservative, now that I think about it, but I haven't seen him in years. My 80 year old uncle is an old school Republican. My Dad was, too, until President G.W. Bush.
If your uncle is a 1930s Republican, doesn't that basically make him a 2012 Democrat?
Heh.
Yeah, man, I mean, look at this guy. His positions were basically the same as Obama's!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well more like a 1950s Republican but he is from Wisconsin and can't bring himself to believe that the GOP has moved away from him.
So he's a Cardian Democrat.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *sigh* Alright, 'like or be satisfied with', then, not 'love'.
I trust you, Dan, to mean what you say, so I do believe you mean that you don't know any, say, Republican Santorum voters or supporters. But it is exasperating, discussing this (much) closer to the center than where the real die-hards live, that it's just a mystery where these wackos and fundies get their support.
They get their support from other wackos and fundies, and yeah, I'm afraid that you almost certainly do know some, just like I do, Dan. At least you know several who if asked it would turn out that while they may not bid on Santorum specifically, they just happen by astounding coincidence to think some of his ideas (gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!) are just spot on.
There's enough of them that they are a powerful, even decisive force every four years, in picking our President. There ain't just a couple of em wrapped around the buckle of the Bible Belt, they're all over the place. There's enough of 'em that only a few years ago, one of the (believed to be) most liberal states in the union amended their Constitution to confirm the inferiority of homosexuals, because everyone knows that, it's in the Bible, duh!
We all know 'em. There ain't a place you can go without rubbing shoulders with some far-right social conservatives, Dan.
Thanks for trusting me not to be a liar.
So, I guess, upon reflection, I was wrong. I think my partner's extended family includes a couple of people I would bet are so-cons. An uncle, a couple cousins. When I've spoken politics with them, we only ever talked fiscal matters, because that was what they were the most concerned with, but I'd bet they're also anti-abortion and probably anti-gay marriage (though like many so-cons, I know they were okay with civil unions).
But really, I was less talking about my personal acquaintances than I was the public-figure conservatives I know of. I don't watch Fox news much, but I do occasionally browse a lot of Republican-leaning internet media sources (blogs and the like). The overwhelming number of them are not very socially conservative (though again, when I put my mind to it I can name a couple I don't follow much).
This is probably a self-selecting group, though; people who write about politics all day may just be less likely to be hardcore social conservatives.
Thing is, even the social conservatives I have to stretch hard to remember I know of barely fit your caricature anyway. And I don't think that's just my perception, either.
I mean, that's what really boggles my mind. The way that you can characterize social conservative positions as "gays, bad! Foreigners, awful! Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful! No EPA, great!" and at the same time accuse the right of being the one that is incendiary and divisive, demonizes its opposition, and so on. Maybe you don't do the latter, Rakeesh, but I'm sure you'll agree the attitude is common.
Just to break down your list: Gays, bad... well, I mean this one is the core principle of the social conservatives! And maybe you're right, although the polling I've seen of the most conservative republicans in general shows about 40% support of civil unions. For moderate republicans it was over 50% support for civil unions. This plus minority groups in both categories actually supporting gay marriage paints a picture either of a part not dominated by the social conservatives you've pictured, or social conservatives who don't look like your picture.
And, of course, this is all setting aside the fact that lots of social conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage don't really have the opinion of "gays=bad" and you know, man. People like Santorum aren't in favor of arresting gays and stoning them to death. He's just against gay marriage. I'm not saying such people have the right idea about marriage, but drumming that up into "gays are bad!" is just intentionally inflammatory.
Next one! "Foreigners, awful!" Hmm, well, no. Social Conservatives, like most conservatives, oppose illegal immigration. But I don't know of any conservative movements to close our borders and stop legal immigration. Newt Gingrich got massive applause at one of the GOP debates when he said that it should be much easier to enter the US legally.
And again, I think you know this. So why would you characterize "illegal immigrants are bad!" as "foreigners are bad!" Rakeesh? You can disagree that their ideas for stringent border control/deportation/civil liberty invading enforcement... but once again you're taking their position and warping it into a wrong and incendiary version of itself.
"Agnostics, atheists, heretics and heathens god-awful!" Really? God-awful? Thinking that Christians are the best, and we should be a Christian nation, is not the same thing as thinking that all non-Christians are awful. Most so-cons do have the terrible idea that Christianity should have primacy over other faiths and beliefs in the US. But I think you know that very few so-cons advocate, say, making it illegal to be Jewish or atheist or whatever. Has that ever even been discussed by the Christian right? (Cue Sam providing a link)
"No EPA, great!" Well, this one I got nothin'. You hit the nail on the head, there. And so did they! Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Not really. LaFollette and his sons characterized the idea of "Republican" from the turn of the century on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Psst. This guy was president in the 30s. And some of the similarities are spooky.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, you win, Lyr. I honestly forget Hoover was a Republican most days.
Aaah, those are good days.
But seriously, while Hoover was certainly a lot more leftist than Coolidge, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing your statement of him being the equivalent to a 2012 Democrat is. Elaborate?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was expecting less sarcasm and more Eisenhower. Old Wisconsinites tend to think that Republican means Fighting Bob LaFollette rather than Scott "Imperial" Walker.
Well, you corrected him to 50s, and I wasn't actually arguing with that.
But his zinger about 30s Republicans is total BS and I think Lyr knows enough history to realize it.
Not really. LaFollette and his sons characterized the idea of "Republican" from the turn of the century on.
Not being from Wisconsin, I wasn't terribly familiar with LaFollette. Now I am, and I'm frankly boggled. That's his idea of a Republican? A guy who ran for president in the Progressive party? Bizarre.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But started as a Republican. Remember the Republican Party started in WI - before it spread to MI, Lyrhawn - as the anti-slavery party.
[ February 08, 2012, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Of course. But you seem to equate being anti-slavery with everything else leftist, and that's a fallacy.
The so-called Southern Strategy was implemented by Hoover. But Coolidge, who preceded Hoover, was vastly more conservative on fiscal matters. Republicans were the party more likely to contain laissez-faire small government types long before the souther strategy. But LaFollette doesn't seem to fit that mold.
That's fine, I'm not saying everyone did or should. And since he was influential to WI, it makes sense that your grand-dad would see him as the quintessential Republican.
Not being from WI, I strongly disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Republican Party didn't entirely lose its mind and heart until the 1980s when it joined forces with the Moral Majority. We are talking about "far-right social conservatives, yes?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I think you know that very few so-cons advocate, say, making it illegal to be Jewish or atheist or whatever. Has that ever even been discussed by the Christian right? (Cue Sam providing a link)
The groups who are described loosely as the hard Dominionists and Christian Reconstructuralists — the sort who I speak of — absolutely do. They did with frightening consistency back in the 80's. They are significant in number, and their views are prevalent in ALL american evangelicism. They are also usually postmillennialists — crudely stated, "God's kingdom actually began at the first coming, and is and absolutely will by God's design spread inexorably across the globe by the will of its followers until all of earth is Christian. Period." It is a sign of progress that they have since been cowed into being very tacit about these ultimate goals, especially regarding old testament law for homosexuals, worshippers of false religions (i.e., every other one), and nonbelievers. Schaeffer, Robertson, Graham, North, Atwater, Ledeen, and a whole host of backers and public faces for the movement — Robertson, Falwell, etc. — set in motion a concerted plan to create a culture of dominionism specifically designed to export its influence to government and the white house; it's the story of Liberty University and the evangelical advisory board (starring later-famous Ted Haggard) that consulted with George W. Bush weekly on spiritual and policy matters. The extent to which they intertwined themselves with the GOP (and still pretty much are) is an amazingly fascinating story, which — to me — culminates most visually with all of Bush's strategy briefings for the war being these odd photoshopped pastiches he would be handed for perusal — of Iraq's security and military situation, with christian imagery and bible quotes all over them.
Michelle Goldberg studied the Reconstructuralists in specific, and reported (correctly) how it "openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy."
They have concertedly buried the most extreme portions of their theocratic beliefs, but their statements to that fact are frozen in time, assuming one is intrigued enough to go delving through journalistic inquiry about the dominionist movements. Some even sit on the American Taliban page.
Gary North: "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship."
Gary Potter: "When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
Morecraft: "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Simonds: "Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable."
These people sure aren't the whole of conservatism, but the extent to which the intended intertwining with the Neoconservative movement was an amazing success (and, for that matter, how they still have representation in high places) means that to not know of them and their true aims is, as was put, non-optional. They are not insignificant in number, and they have held an amazingly huge influence over multiple presidencies and hold an amazingly disproportional representation in congress. I don't mean to bring all this up to be all like "BE AFRAID OF ALL THESE SCARY CHRISTIANS!" because I'm really not afraid of them and think that they broke on the rocks a while back (and that it's all mostly downhill for them now) but to point out that they exist and they are not a negligible element of american conservatism; they are actually a very prominent part of american conservatism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't mean to bring all this up to be all like "BE AFRAID OF ALL THESE SCARY CHRISTIANS!"
Yeah, I have to say this stuff reminds me of the people talking about how significant and powerful groups of Muslims really do want to implement Sharia law everywhere and really do want to exterminate all the Jews.
Except without the added benefit of the demonized group constantly, vigorously, explicitly stating said goals.
Help me out here, man. I hate conspiracy theories. Have no patience for 'em. Instead of showing me all the people analyzing Perry and Bachman and attributing motives and nefarious secret cabals, show me where they said this stuff.
And not, said stuff in code that because you have the decoder ring you actually know what they meant. Actually said it.
Show me who (aside from Rushdoony, who even your article admits was denounced by other members of the Christian right) "openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy" and show me when and show me who agreed with them.
I'm not saying I don't believe such people exist. But I'd love to see some actual evidence that these people are as common and powerful as you say. I suspect that what you're going to give me are a lot of "telling" circumstances and connections, a la the people who think Obama hates white people because he went to Reverend Wright's church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Help me out here, man. I hate conspiracy theories. Have no patience for 'em.
Not a conspiracy theory. The reconstructionalists had not largely denied their motivations at all, which is the reason why I no longer consider them a threat — even though I have to consider them a lingering influence.
quote:The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.
So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.
The Recons are keenly aware of the P.R. difficulties such views pose as they become more widely known. Brian Abshire writes in the January Chalcedon Report, the official magazine of Rushdoony's institute, that the "judicial sanctions" are "at the root" of the antipathy most evangelicals still show towards Reconstruction. Indeed, as the press spotlight has intensified, prominent religious conservatives have edged away. For a while the Coalition on Revival (COR), an umbrella group set up to "bring America back to its biblical foundations" by identifying common ground among Christian right activists of differing theological backgrounds, allowed leading Reconstructionists to chum around with such figures as televangelist D. James Kennedy (whose Coral Ridge Ministries also employed militant Reconstructionist George Grant as a vice president) and National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist Robert Dugan.
quote:Lest such relations become unduly frictionless, here's a clip-and-save sampler of Reconstructionist quotes to keep on hand:
On the link between reason and liberty: "Reason itself is not an objective `given' but is itself a divinely created instrument employed by the unregenerate to further their attack on God." The "appeal to reason as final arbiter" must be rejected; "if man is permitted autonomy in one sphere he will soon claim autonomy in all spheres....We therefore deny every expression of human autonomy--liberal, conservative or libertarian." Thus affirmed Andrew Sandlin, in the January Chalcedon Report.
Intellectual liberty (other religions department): Hindus, Muslims, and the like would still be free to practice their rites "in the privacy of your own home....But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state....every civil order protects its foundations," wrote the late Recon theologian Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen added that the interdiction applies to "someone [who] comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)."
Intellectual liberty (where secularists fit in department): "All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans," explains Rushdoony. "When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed," wrote Bahnsen.
On ultimate goals: "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
quote:Barber is the Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University . Just last year, Liberty University was a sponsor of the American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference entitled "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference - Biblical Blueprints for Victory! "
The Bible tells us in Genesis 1:28 that God created us to multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion of His creation for His Glory. When Jesus came to earth, He gave his disciples the Great Commission and told them to make disciples of all nations, Baptize them, and teach them to obey all that he had commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). These two mandates form the basis for why Christ’s Church exists on this planet. Every square inch of this world belongs to King Jesus. It is our privilege to serve Him by exercising servanthood dominion in every area of life.
re: Coral Ridge Ministries, via the Southern Poverty Law Center
quote:Beginning in the early 1960s, the Rev. D. James Kennedy turned conservative Coral Ridge Presbyterian into a mega-church that now claims 10,000 members. In 1974, Kennedy branched out with Coral Ridge Ministries, which has since become one of the largest fundamentalist enterprises in America with some 160 employees, several divisions including a Washington-based Center for Christian Statesmanship, and radio and television studios producing shows that reach a combined weekly audience of 3 million.
Kennedy has described the works of Reconstructionism founder R.J. Rushdoony (see Chalcedon Foundation), which are laced with anti-black racism and anti-gay vitriol, as "essential." His ministry has sold a book by leading Reconstructionist George Grant that laments the abandonment of legal codes prescribing death for homosexuals.
And I could just go on and on and on, from Coral Ridge Ministries to American Vision:
quote:Founded in 1978 by Gary DeMar, one of America's most prominent proponents of Christian Reconstructionism, American Vision produces a wide variety of "educational resources" designed to "restore America's Biblical foundation."
"The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.
While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."
Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."
DeMar is also down on anti-poverty programs. "Nowhere in the Bible is civil government given authority to help the poor by raising taxes on the rich," he insists in the American Vision Web site essay. "In fact, as history shows, the 'war on poverty' became the war on the poor."
... the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Coalition on Revival, founded in 1981 to get in on spreading reconstructionism ...
quote:The formation of the Coalition on Revival (COR) has been a key force in the politics of religion. At the same time that COR provided a catalyst (and a cover) for the discussion, dissemination, and acceptance of Reconstructionist doctrine, these ideas have percolated up through a wide swath of American Protestantism. COR "is a network of evangelical leaders from every major denominational and theological perspective who share a vision for and a commitment to worldwide revival, renewal, and reformation in Church and society." ...
Article 20 (SPM): "We deny that God and His truth should ever be separated from the State; this should put to rest the Reconstructionists' claim that the Church will not control the government in a theonomic society."
Article 22 (SPM): "Christians must be involved in all processes and offices of civil government in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ ... such involvement is part of the Church's prophetic role in society."
Article 21a (LWE): "The ultimate goal of missions ... must be the totality of the gospel and the necessity of Christ's lordship in all of its fullness for all the life of individuals, families, churches, states, and other aspects of society."
Totality of the gospel. Necessity of christ's lordship. and on, and on, and on. I am really only stopping the post here because I think it's getting retardedly long, but there's just so much to delve into.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Crazy stuff! Thanks, man.
I'm not going to have time to read all of it now, but I really do appreciate it (Also nice job sourcing Reason, that's a surefire way to get me to read it, but I suspect you already knew that!)
Hate to impose on you, but mostly I'm seeing here a description of the wackjob ideas of the reconstructionists. Re: the linking of mainstream republicans like Perry and Bachmann to these groups... is that a they-went-to-churches-with-reconstructionist-ties sort of a deal, or do we have them quoted as saying they support this crap?
I don't need a Perry quote saying "The execution of the occasional gay would be good for America," but I'd love, say, "I've read everything Rushdoony's every written, and that man was a genius with a brilliant plan for this country!" Do those exist?
The part I was characterizing as conspiracy theory, by the way, was largely the "lingering influence" angle. Like, if Perry used some phrase made popular by Reconstructionists, or Bachmann attended a church with a Reconstructionist, or something like that, I would say that claiming they are secretly Reconstructionists is a conspiracy theory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, you win, Lyr. I honestly forget Hoover was a Republican most days.
Aaah, those are good days.
But seriously, while Hoover was certainly a lot more leftist than Coolidge, I'm not entirely sure what you're basing your statement of him being the equivalent to a 2012 Democrat is. Elaborate?
If you want a quick and dirty list of policy initiatives:
Pro-labor legislation, dramatically raised taxes on the wealthy ten times as much as Obama has proposed in his wildest dreams, big public works projects, proposed the creation of the Department of Education, proposed programs for urban renewal, removed troops from foreign soil and tried to tamp down American militarism, government relief programs for failing banks and to prop up state and local governments, raised corporate income tax.
You look at all that and tell me which party he'd be in today.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You can even do that with reagan, it's amazing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Hate to impose on you, but mostly I'm seeing here a description of the wackjob ideas of the reconstructionists. Re: the linking of mainstream republicans like Perry and Bachmann to these groups... is that a they-went-to-churches-with-reconstructionist-ties sort of a deal, or do we have them quoted as saying they support this crap?
The thing is is that it's like it is with GWB: You couldn't say he's a reconstructuralist, but he acts as an example of the extent to which the movement branched out and ingrained themselves in brain trusts and think tanks and check-writers and became influential partners and became a big part of policy representation, and they still have colleges and movements and ministries everywhere which teach tens of thousands of americans, straightforwardly, upfront, that this is to be a christian nation governed by biblical law. Of course, a lot of the hard and fast rules of reconstructuralism tend to dilute out to the greater public, similar to how probably less than 1% of american catholics are really following catholicism's rules, but you still get the major salient points going through and becoming common viewpoints in evangelicism. See: "This is a chistian nation founded on biblical law, the founding fathers were actually, um, all .. ministers! Yeah! Baptists, in fact! Whatever, this is all blatant historical revisionism anyway, let's just go nuts!"
Perry and Bachmann can easily be identified as dominionists based on a point-by-point reading of their governing ideals, and still play up a lot of their lore (including the whole christian nation bit) but at the SAME TIME they act as examples of how quickly the ideals of the movement have been transitioning to political poison; Bachmann, in particular, dropped mention of dominionist figures in her political friends list like they were white-hot, such as Dr. George Grant of New College Franklin (a reconstructuralist christian university). I would bet that even though she would have described herself precisely that way in the past (she even went to Oral Roberts University, pledge included, so it's a very easy case to make), she would deny being part of the movement today. It has had to 'go underground' and have much more tactical fronts that don't endanger its adherents in office (see also, creationism turning into intelligent design). It is the primary indication of how it's pretty much evaporating at present into a much more diluted form.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Gotcha.
So instead of a ton of links and quotes of crazy reconstructionist beliefs, do you have a ton of links and quotes to support the idea that reconstructionists "branched out and ingrained themselves in brain trusts and think tanks and check-writers and became influential partners and became a big part of policy representation, and they still have colleges and movements and ministries everywhere which teach tens of thousands of americans, straightforwardly, upfront, that this is to be a christian nation governed by biblical law."
Cause that's sort of what I'm questioning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, but, that involves a read, not a skim. I can try to bold individually relevant parts, but, I'd say, read all this junk anyway.
Aside from what is contained in the links already there:
quote:Reconstructionists also exert significant clout through front organizations and coalitions with other religious fundamentalists; Baptists, Anglicans, and others have deep theological differences with the movement, but they have made common cause with its leaders in groups such as the National Coalition for Revival. Reconstruction has slowly absorbed, congregation by congregation, the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (not to be confused with the progressive Presbyterian Church [USA]) and has heavily influenced others, notably the Southern Baptists.
George W. Bush has called Reconstruction-influenced theoretician Marvin Olasky “compassionate conservatism’s leading thinker,” and Olasky served as one of the president’s key advisers on the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Bush also invited Reconstructionist Jack Hayford, a key figure in the Promise Keepers men’s group, to give the benediction at his first inaugural. Deposed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, though his office won’t comment on his religious views, governs with what he calls a “biblical worldview”—one of Reconstruction’s signature phrases. And, for conspiracy buffs, two heavy contributors to the Chalcedon Foundation—Reconstruction’s main think tank—are Howard Ahmanson and Nelson Bunker Hunt, both of whose families played key roles in financing electronic voting machine manufacturer Election Systems & Software. Ahmanson is also a major sponsor of ultraconservative politicians, including California state legislator and 2003 gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock.
quote:Reconstruction’s major impact has been through helping to found and guide cross-denominational and secular political organ-izations. The Council for National Policy—a group that holds meetings for right-wing leaders, once dubbed “the most powerful conservative group you’ve never heard of”—was founded in 1981 as a project of top John Birch Society figures (see “The Fountainhead”). Its members included Rushdoony, Gary North, Tim LaHaye, former Reagan aide Gary Bauer, and activist Paul Weyrich, who famously aimed to “overturn the present power structure of this country.”
Another group, the Coalition on Revival, brings together influential evangelicals to produce joint statements and theological white papers. North and DeMar are among the coalition’s most influential members; one of its founding documents is signed by 116 Christian right activists, including Rushdoony, mega-evangelist D. James Kennedy, and Roy Jones, a top staffer at the Republican Senatorial Committee.
quote:The Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for social conservative activists in the United States. It has been described by The New York Times as a "little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country," who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.[1] Nation magazine has called it a secretive organization that "networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy."[2] It was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians seeking to strengthen the political right in the United States.[3]
quote:The enemies of morality will not stop and will not back off. The Left cannot and will not change. . . .If the Democrats in the Senate try again to usurp the President's constitutional authority by filibustering. . . , there will be a battle of enormous proportions from sea to shining sea. —James Dobson
While Rushdoony and Schaeffer are virtually unknown outside Christian right-wing circles, their teachings, co-opted by those with political agendas, have taken on lives of their own.
Fueled by the political writings of Rushdoony and the social activism of Schaeffer, and energized by the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye launched the Moral Majority in 1979. That same year, Beverly LaHaye started Concerned Women for America as a biblical counterpoint to the National Organization for Women. Since then the Christian Right has seldom looked back, even as it has taken on wildly apocalyptic overtones.
By the early 1980s the Christian Right had formed a voting bloc that burgeoned into a powerful movement. It effectively ushered Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush into the presidency. As Katherine Yurica describes in "The Despoiling of America," "The years 1982-1986 marked the period. . . that would turn millions of Christians into an army of political operatives. It was the period when the militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and once again eyed power."4
As the media empires of evangelical leaders and televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, and Paul Crouch grew to encompass print, radio, and television, so too did the reach and power of the Religious Right. It now boasts of representing some 30 million Christian voters, as its leaders are fond of reminding elected officials. For example, dominionist-influenced leaders often have a direct line into the White House. It has been reported that James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, held weekly telephone conversations with Bush adviser Karl Rove during the campaign. As Falwell remarked to Vanity Fair about his participation in a group made up of right-wing political and religious leaders, the Council for National Policy, which enjoys regular access to the Oval Office, "Everyone takes our calls."5
quote:Members of the CNP have included: General John Singlaub, shipping magnate J. Peter Grace, Edwin J. Feulner Jr of the Heritage Foundation, Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Jerry Falwell, Senator Trent Lott, Southern Baptist Convention activists and retired Texas Court of Appeals Judge Paul Pressler, and the Rev. Paige Patterson ,[5] Senator Don Nickles, former United States Attorneys General Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, gun-rights activist Larry Pratt, Col. Oliver North, and philanthropist Else Prince, mother of Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater private security firm.[6][7] Membership is by invitation only. The membership list, previously made public, is now "strictly confidential." Guests may attend "only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee." Members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks.[1] New York Times political writer David D. Kirkpatrick suggested that the secrecy since its founding was intended to insulate the Council from the "liberal bias of the news media".[3] CNP's meetings are closed to the general public, reportedly to allow for a free-flowing exchange of ideas. The group meets three times per year.[8] This policy is said to be similar to the long-held policy of the Council on Foreign Relations, to which the CNP has at times been compared. CNP's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status was revoked by the IRS in 1992 on grounds that it was not an organization run for the public benefit. The group successfully challenged this ruling in federal court. A quarterly journal aimed at educating the public, promised in the wake of this incident, has not substantially materialized. The group has launched a website that contains selected speeches from past gatherings. While those involved are almost entirely from the United States, their organizations and influence cover the globe, both religiously and politically. Members include corporate executives,[9] legislators[9] former high ranking government officers,[9] leaders of 'think tanks'[9] dedicated to molding society and those whom many view as "Christian leadership".[9]
quote:CNP was founded in 1981 by Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series of books. Other early participants included Cleon Skousen, a prominent theologian and law enforcement expert; Paul Weyrich; Phyllis Schlafly; Robert Grant; Howard Phillips, a former Republican affiliated with the Constitution Party; Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail specialist; and Morton Blackwell, a Louisiana and Virginia activist who is considered a specialist on the rules of the Republican Party.
quote:The Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University considers the Council for National Policy a leading force in the Dominionist movement. TheocracyWatch, a CRESP project, describes it as "an umbrella organization of right-wing leaders who gather regularly to plot strategy, share ideas and fund causes and candidates to advance the theocratic agenda."
quote:The Great Right Hope by Frederick Clarkson documents how Dr. Steven Hotze out-shouted the GOP Chair to take over the leadership of the Harris County (home to Houston) political apparatus:
The wildest dreams of the Far Right in America may actually be within their reach - control of the Republican Party.
In 1990, Dr. Bruce Prescott received a video from Dr. Hotze:
In February 1990 I received an unsolicited video in the mail. The video came from a Dr. Stephen Hotze and was entitled "Restoring America: How You Can Impact Civil Government." Filmed at a church in my neighborhood, I recognized the actors as the pastor and congregants of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church (the Jerry Falwell kind). The video was a guide on how to 1) take over a Republican Party precinct meeting, 2) elect "Christian" delegates to the GOP District meeting, and 3) put planks supporting the theocratic agenda of Christian Reconstructionism into the party platform.
San Jose Mercury News, 1992, Two articles -- one before the election, one after:
A group dedicated to making the Bible the law of the land has quietly positioned itself to take over the Republican Party's power structure in Santa Clara County.
The 17 Christian right candidates for the Republican Central Committee appear on a mailer put out by a Tehama County group called Citizens for Liberty. The flier says the candidates advocate "traditional family values, more jobs, lower taxes, welfare reform and choice in education.".. More liberal Republicans say the Central Committee campaign is part of a widespread "stealth" effort to take over America by starting with little-noticed local races. They cite elections in San Diego County two years ago, when 60 of 90 Christian right candidates for low-level offices won election, largely by campaigning through conservative churches.
"Clearly the strategy is to control the central committees and then use the central committees to give credibility to their candidates," said Luis Buhler...
A fundraising letter ... includes "a call for the death penalty for abortion, adultery and unrepentant homosexuality."
Many of these links come from The Activists Handbook, by Frederick Clarkson and Skipp Porteous of the (no longer active) Institute for First Amendment Studies. Articles from the Handbook have been scanned for this site because they are not otherwise available on the web. These articles document the activities of the Christian Coalition from 1991-1993 as they began to take "working control" of the Republican Party.
To read about the covert tactics of the Christian Reconstruction movement, click here.
quote:Much has been made of the "stealth tactics" practiced by the Christian Right. Whereas the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell, was overt about its Christian agenda, many contemporary Christian Rightists have lowered their religious profile or gone under cover. In fact, these tactics have been refined for years by the Reconstructionist movement, as Robert Thoburn's education strategy suggests. Gary North proposed stealth tactics more than a decade ago in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction (1981), urging "infiltration" of government to help "smooth the transition to Christian political leadership. . . .Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure, and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order." Similar stealth tactics have epitomized the resurgence of the Christian Right, as groups like Citizens for Excellence in Education and the Christian Coalition have quietly backed candidates who generally avoided running as overtly "Christian" candidates. The Christian Coalition actually proposed something similar to Gary North's notion of "infiltration" when its 1992 "County Action Plan" for Pennsylvania advised that "You should never mention the name Christian Coalition in Republican circles." The goal, apparently, is to facilitate becoming "directly involved in the local Republican Central Committee so that you are an insider. This way," continues the manual, "you can get a copy of the local committee rules and a feel for who is in the current Republican Committee." The next step is to recruit conservative Christians to occupy vacant party posts or to run against moderates who "put the Republican Party ahead of principle."
Antonio Rivera, a New York Christian Coalition political advisor, suggested similar ideas at a 1992 Christian Coalition meeting. While urging that Coalition members seek to place themselves in influential positions, he advised that "You keep your personal views to yourself until the Christian community is ready to rise up, and then wow! They're gonna be devastated!" Some leaders have now publicly renounced "stealth" tactics.
Central to the Christian Right's strategy is to exploit the national pattern of low voter participation by turning out their constituents in a strategically disciplined fashion and in greater proportion than the rest of the population. An important vehicle for achieving this goal is the ideology of Christian Reconstructionism or its stripped-down root, dominionism, which at once deepens the political motivation of their constituency and widens that constituency by systematically mobilizing a network of churches, many of which were politically uninvolved until the early 1990s.
Much has been written about the success of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition in accomplishing these goals. But it could be argued that the Christian Coalition would not have been possible without Reconstructionism, and that Operation Rescue would not have been possible without the Reconstructionist-influenced philosoper Francis Schaeffer. In the 1970s, Pat Robertson was an apolitical charismatic televangelist, and Randall Terry a would-be rock n' roll star.
quote:Christian Reconstructionism's ultimate moment may or may not arrive; however it has had tremendous influence as a catalyst for an historic shift in American religion and politics. Christian colleges and bookstores are full of Reconstructionist material. The proliferation of this material and influence is likely to continue. Christian Reconstructionism is largely an underground, underestimated movement of ideas, the rippling surface of which is the political movement known as the Christian Right.
quote:The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law." Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.
Reconstructionism has expanded from the works of a small group of scholars to inform a wide swath of conservative Christian thought and action. While many Reconstructionist political positions are commonly held conservative views, what is significant is that Reconstructionists have created a comprehensive program, with Biblical justifications for far right political policies. Many post-World War II conservative, anticommunist activists were also, if secondarily, conservative Christians. However, the Reconstructionist movement calls on conservatives to be Christians first, and to build a church-based political movement from there.
For much of Reconstructionism's short history it has been an ideology in search of a constituency. But its influence has grown far beyond the founders' expectations.
and onnnnnnnnn
quote:In 1973, R. J. Rushdoony compared the structure of the JBS to the "early church." He wrote in Institutes: "The key to the John Birch Society's effectiveness has been a plan of operation which has a strong resemblance to the early church; have meetings, local `lay' leaders, area supervisors or `bishops.'"
The JBS connection does not stop there. Most leading Reconstructionists have either been JBS members or have close ties to the organization. Reconstructionist literature can be found in JBS-affiliated American Opinion bookstores.
and on I guess but I shouldn't have to introduce the John Birch society and its continued legacy in the current american conservative movement, including the tea party, which has been brewed quite nicely in the cauldron described.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Not done reading all the stuff you posted yet, but, man, are you seriously taking the position that none of these sources are conspiracy theorizing?
Just riffing off of the quotes I've read so far...
Neither the Promise Keepers nor the John Birch Society can be described as endorsing some sort of psychotic totalitarian Christian state unless you start making up lots of sinister secret motives.
The JBS is quite straightforwardly an extreme constitutionalist small government group, which is pretty obviously antithetical to a totalitarian state of any kind. It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them (and by association the tea party, but we probably don't need to go down that road again right now).
The Promise Keepers are vaguely creepy in the sense that take their religion sincerely and that creeps me out. But to attribute totalitarian motives to them, again, is to "decode" their message and "examine" their connections.
To say nothing of the Council for National Policy! Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
Yeah, I'll keep reading, but this stuff is pretty histrionic. Not sold yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are inputting your own histrionic narrative, like this:
quote:Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
.. and then saying you're not sold on that narrative.
That's fine, because it's your own. Go ahead and trash it as much as you want!
Who's talking about CNP 'conspiracies' because of their secretiveness? It's not like it's a 'conspiracy theory' that it was literally even founded by Tim LaHaye, any less than it is a 'conspiracy theory' that Rushdoony was literally actually part of the John Birch Society, as was a whole host of strict reconstructuralists right out of his camp, or that the John Birch Society still subscribes to dominionist thought today (its originalist interpretation of the constitution is overtly religious)
The point is to show that the CNP, like a whole host of other important elements of american conservatism, show the extent to which reconstructuralist thinkers became prominent influences on the christian right, and spread dominionism to a profound level of prominence in conservatism.
quote: It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them
There is a serious difference between 'attributing all kinds of secret evil motives' and showing JBS's straightforward ties to Reconstructionists as part of a wider story of how Reconstructionism became influential for a long, long time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
You see, guantanamo was bad, but now our guy is keeping it open, so, see, it's not so bad anymore. it's different now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's just a reiteration of that oh-so-constant theme, where people get so invested in the party mentality that makes something okay because it's OUR guy doing it. To the extent that a majority of democrats have now gone and gotten cozy with guantanamo.
Or I guess indefinite detention expansions. Or, you know, whatever. But if Obama actually put the kibosh to these things, they would not have excused it but said 'it was an obviously bad thing good thing Obama stopped it'
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Satire got the best of unsuspecting or factually impaired Republican Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana this past Friday. An ardent opponent of abortion, Fleming posted on his Facebook account a link to a May 11, 2011 story by The Onion titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."
Fleming's Facebook status, which has since been deleted, included the link with the note, "More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale."
It's this kind of thing that really bolsters my opinion that no, both parties are not equally ridiculous.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You are inputting your own histrionic narrative, like this:
quote:Oh man, the conspiracies! They meet behind closed doors! The most powerful conservative group you never heard of! Dun dun DUN!!
.. and then saying you're not sold on that narrative.
That's fine, because it's your own. Go ahead and trash it as much as you want!
Who's talking about CNP 'conspiracies' because of their secretiveness? It's not like it's a 'conspiracy theory' that it was literally even founded by Tim LaHaye, any less than it is a 'conspiracy theory' that Rushdoony was literally actually part of the John Birch Society, as was a whole host of strict reconstructuralists right out of his camp, or that the John Birch Society still subscribes to dominionist thought today (its originalist interpretation of the constitution is overtly religious)
The point is to show that the CNP, like a whole host of other important elements of american conservatism, show the extent to which reconstructuralist thinkers became prominent influences on the christian right, and spread dominionism to a profound level of prominence in conservatism.
quote: It seems like you are attributing all kinds of secret evil motives to them
There is a serious difference between 'attributing all kinds of secret evil motives' and showing JBS's straightforward ties to Reconstructionists as part of a wider story of how Reconstructionism became influential for a long, long time.
No, showing that people with reconstructionist ties are involved in (or even founded, gasp) an organization does not actually prove that organization has in any way advanced a reconstructionist agenda.
How has the JBS, for example, advanced a dominionist attitude?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's just a reiteration of that oh-so-constant theme, where people get so invested in the party mentality that makes something okay because it's OUR guy doing it. To the extent that a majority of democrats have now gone and gotten cozy with guantanamo.
Or I guess indefinite detention expansions. Or, you know, whatever. But if Obama actually put the kibosh to these things, they would not have excused it but said 'it was an obviously bad thing good thing Obama stopped it'
I'm very quiet about Obama these days. Primarily over these issues. I've been deeply disappointed. I wouldn't be stupid enough to think a republican would have done better. That's a laugh- but OBama should have.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
I was convinced that he would. Foolish me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. Guantanamo is still bad. As I inform the Democratic Party every time (at least a couple of times a week) they call to ask me for time or money. Plus the letters.
But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it? Sometimes you don't get everything you want.
I was convinced that he would. Foolish me.
You and me both.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am disappointed, too, but we had still better get our butts out there to vote for him because the alternatives are considerably worse. We can at least keep the pressure on a president who owes us - a Republican president would have pressure in a whole different direction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But, seriously, do you think anyone else who has a shot at getting elected is going to close it?
quote:I am disappointed, too, but we had still better get our butts out there to vote for him because the alternatives are considerably worse.
I'd suggest that the latter attitude is the primary driving force for the former reality.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is always going to result in a continuation of bad candidates winning and good candidates not having a chance.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Voting for the lesser of two evils is always going to result in a continuation of bad candidates winning and good candidates not having a chance.
It's too bad the American system leaves us no choice except to vote for the lesser evil, or else let the greater evil win.
If America were the only country we harmed with our actions, I'd consider taking your stance. But I'm not going to risk killing off another 100,000 Middle Easterners by handing the presidency to a Republican.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree. Lives are at stake, ultimately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, who are you going to vote for that will change that reality?
Be idealistic in local elections where one can hope for more perfect candidates. Keep supporting them as they reach for higher office. Don't throw away a vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How has the JBS, for example, advanced a dominionist attitude?
Aside from how they still do? They started with books and 'ministry outreaches' or whatnot back in the late 60's-early 70's. They have preached it. They have since ran fast and far away from any associations to Reconstructuralism as a movement. Well, most, anyway. I guess they still distribute some reconstructuralist literature and still have some associations with the reconstructuralist presbyterians — I can't be sure, but I suspect they flat-out started kicking some of them out after a while, and one way or another the Reconstructuralist part of JBS died — but, like most things stanked by reconstructuralists, it remains dominionist, and says the constitution is valid only because of its relation to fundamentalist christian principles (and can only be considered a valid reading if it upholds those principles). The bircher originalist theory on the constitution, at its core, is religous. That it merely affirms rights given to us by God, that you have to maintain those God-given rights VIA the constitution, etc. You can check out their site themselves if you don't trust my word on it.
At the worst of it, their chairman was most likely a full-blown reconstructionist (Larry McDonald) committed to advancing Biblical law. Fellow JBS member Rev. Joseph Morecraft talked in detail about McDonald's aims with the organization: "Larry [McDonald] understood that when the authors of the US Constitution spoke of law, they meant the law of God as revealed in the Bible. I have heard him say many times that we must refute humanistic, relativistic law with Biblical Law." (see earlier) . . especially given the minutes of JBS speeches and 'outreaches' to various movements, as well as there being no reason to suspect rev. morecraft is lying or mistaken, you can call the JBS an example of the many right-wing groups with a long history of reconstructionist influences.
Ah, but so what. A history of dominionist aims and theory in the JBS registers barely at all underneath the other ridiculous insanities of that organization's amazingly lunatic past.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
You see, guantanamo was bad, but now our guy is keeping it open, so, see, it's not so bad anymore. it's different now.
I'm highly skeptical of this claim since it appears in the Post article but not in the poll results.. The report claims the he was told the partisan break down by the people who took the poll but it never appears in the published report.
I'm always skeptical when a statistic turns out to be something a reporter "heard from an insider" but can't be independently verified. When that statistic is contrary to everything I've heard from legitimate far left sources -- my skepticism seems even more justified.
[ February 10, 2012, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I wouldn't put it past Salon, which occasionally likes to drop off an eye-gougingly bad article here and again.
Well, at least I never link the huffington post, ever.
also, something out of character, because as everyone knows I never say anything good about obama and it's getting tiresome:
quote:After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.
That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.
My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.
.. oh. ... yes, it .. fits
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Samprimary, can you link that quote? (Or is it yours?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've got to admit, that would explain an otherwise very puzzling and potentially damaging political move. Goodness knows Republicans wouldnt be able to resist the matador's cape that is religion and sex together.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The quote is from Amanda Marcotte's blog post at Slate. Personally I find her suggestion a pretty big stretch. I think the more likely explanation is the straight-forward scenario that the decision on contraception was made, popular umbrage was ginned up, and the President (on the advice of Axelrod, who went on tv days ago talking up a possible compromise) backed down so as not to offend a potential swing demographic. To me it's simpler and fits the data just as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say it does fit most of it just as well, but there's still the question of why the decision was made-at this time-in the first place. I mean, it's not often Republicans can lay the charge of attack on religion towards Democrats and actually have it be in the ballpark of fact.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Voting for the lesser of two evils is always going to result in a continuation of bad candidates winning and good candidates not having a chance.
It's too bad the American system leaves us no choice except to vote for the lesser evil, or else let the greater evil win.
If America were the only country we harmed with our actions, I'd consider taking your stance. But I'm not going to risk killing off another 100,000 Middle Easterners by handing the presidency to a Republican.
Support Americans Elect.
They're expected to make the biggest Third Party bid in decades. I don't think they've nearly hit critical mass, but I'm paying attention, and I've considered getting involved.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
I'm not sure Americans Elect will have much of a splash. i just checked out their site, and while it appears to be a great idea, it looks like it got hijacked (unsurprisingly) by Ron Paul's minions.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
As Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote (according to a quick googling), I assume you mean since him?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ross Perot wasn't a party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: I'm not sure Americans Elect will have much of a splash. i just checked out their site, and while it appears to be a great idea, it looks like it got hijacked (unsurprisingly) by Ron Paul's minions.
I don't really think that's true. I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul supporters push AE in some way, but a lot of the point of the movement is to find non-partisan people from outside the mainstream field. That hardly describes Ron Paul. Besides, AE starts electing reps to their convention within a few weeks, and the GOP nomination will still be ongoing.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
It does seem like such a good idea. I'm hoping it does work to affect change in the current political climate. But from the current list of "potential candidates" at the site, I'm not holding my breath.
I guess I'll try to leave my cynicism at the door for a bit and see what happens. I'm definitely intrigued enough by the idea that I will keep up with the news with their coming convention.
Thanks for the heads up about them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The quote is from Amanda Marcotte's blog post at Slate. Personally I find her suggestion a pretty big stretch. I think the more likely explanation is the straight-forward scenario that the decision on contraception was made, popular umbrage was ginned up, and the President (on the advice of Axelrod, who went on tv days ago talking up a possible compromise) backed down so as not to offend a potential swing demographic. To me it's simpler and fits the data just as well.
Well. Anyway. The latest anyone but romney is now Santorum.
quote:If they could secede, then they would have become independent sovereign nations. The POTUS has the power as Commander-in-Chief (Art. II, sec. 2) to take military actions against threats to the United States, including other nations, without a formal declaration of war from Congress (e.g. the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc.). Since the South 'fired first' with the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln's actions--at least, using a modern interpretation of the President's powers--would have been completely constitutional.
Uh, again, anyway.
Also there's three avowed white supremacists all walking around and speaking at CPAC, I'm beyond understanding anything that is going on with that party
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Which ones are those, Sam?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:CPAC is here, so it’s time for everyone’s annual look at the psychos invited to the premier conservative event of the year, and those unfortunate enough to have been excluded.
GOProud, the gay Republican group that was founded because the Log Cabin Republicans were considered too concerned about gay civil rights and not sufficiently focused on “fiscal issues,” is not invited this year, because they are too “aggressive” about being gay, which made Jim DeMint uncomfortable.
CPAC also uninvited the John Birch Society, which had made a triumphant return to mainstream conservative acceptance in 2010, when they co-sponsored the conference.
But! While the Birchers and the open homosexualists are no longer welcome, there is still room for multiple outspoken white nationalists!
quote:One is Peter Brimelow*, founder of the nativist site VDARE which publishes the works of white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and the other is Robert Vandervoort, who runs a group called ProEnglish and according to the Institute for Research on Education and Human Rights, "was also the organizer of the white nationalist group, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance," which is affiliated with Taylor.
They'll be appearing on a panel titled "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity" alongside National Review's John Derbyshire, who believes "that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races," differences that are "facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets." I'm not sure whether there's really any daylight between Derbyshire, who is a long-time writer at American conservatism's flagship magazine, and the two other men he's appearing with.
whee Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Although $7.4 billion sounds like a whole lot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, I think his judgment was at least called into question. And yeah, while I am personally neutral on the morality of consenting adults exchanging racy pics of themselves with each other on the Internet, I'm not neutral on desiring federal-level politicians to have sufficient restraint and judgment to, if they're going to do so, do it with enough care that scandal is avoided.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Because once the world had seen his wee willie winkie (thankfully cotton covered), nobody wanted to see any more bits of him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: And yeah, while I am personally neutral on the morality of consenting adults exchanging racy pics of themselves with each other on the Internet,
I thought he posted some of those pictures completely unsolicited, and that some of this was done without consent of his married partner, which I would put in a less neutral moral category.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Can anyone explain the pros and cons of Race to the Top?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: And yeah, while I am personally neutral on the morality of consenting adults exchanging racy pics of themselves with each other on the Internet,
I thought he posted some of those pictures completely unsolicited, and that some of this was done without consent of his married partner, which I would put in a less neutral moral category.
Yeah, my understand is at least some of his pictures were sent unsolicited to not-quite-underage women without the consent of his spouse, which puts it pretty firmly in the "sleazy" category (and violates the "consenting adults" clause above, since one of them didn't precisely consent).
I'm not, personally, hugely disturbed if a politician is sleazy per se, but I'm in a minority on that I think, and those that do find sleazy politicians abhorrent had legitimate fodder for what followed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a dick pic puts him in the category of roughly being an internet troll, from a party that generally doesn't run on moralist issues.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Morality ain't the primary concern, for me at least. Though someone in the Internet troll category, I don't see why his departure is lamented.
My beef is, hey, what he did was deeply stupid for a politician, self-destructive. And not for a principled cause. Calls his restraint and judgment into question.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
More, it suggests very strongly that he wished for his political career to end, but was unwilling, due to ego, to end it gracefully. Not in the slightest bit uncommon.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: My beef is, hey, what he did was deeply stupid for a politician, self-destructive. And not for a principled cause. Calls his restraint and judgment into question.
And for a politician with his last name I think it counts as double-super-deeply-stupid with a heap of whipped ironic topping.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would've liked it had he been as ballsy with it as he was in his dealings in Congress, he should have been upfront and been like "Yeah it was a dick pic, so?" maybe a week or so of question dodging but no one except the partisan right wing would call for his resignation. The internet would've loved him.
e: We need another Lyndon Johnson.
quote: If the circumstances make it such that you can't &#$% a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him think he's got the keys to the car.
Maybe Rahm will run in 2016.
[ February 18, 2012, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'The Internet' doesn't win elections or media circuses, I'm afraid. And even if he'd been up-front and aggressive in handling it, I still wouldn't want him in Congress. His chicken@#$% way of dealing with it, and the damage he did to his various causes, weren't the issue either.
The issue is, as others have pointed out, if you're going to be stupid and self-destructive and totally impractical because you want to get your sexual rocks off in some way online (entirely aside from very real questions of, y'know, *consent*), you shouldn't be in Congress. That's a serious position with serious power, and surely the very least we can do is require that the people holding that office and that power committ ongoing political suicide for nothing.
He did a fantastically stupid thing, yet he wasn't a stupid man. So, g'bye!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posting pictures of himself online isn't rape. So I fail to see how 'consent' really is an issue here, how it affects his relationship with his wife is a private issue that I do not believe the country has a vested interest in. Certainly not since he hasn't made it his platform to run on "family values".
Congress is a terrible place filled with terrible people and does terrible things and he was one of the few Kuccinich type liberal progressives remaining in a party full of fake liberals and conservacrats. It's looking like Elizabeth Warren might be heading down the DNC lapdog root, it's looking worse and worse these days for progressivism liberalism in the United States, the Democrats keep moving to the right.
[ February 18, 2012, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow, we've skipped some levels! Neither I nor anyone else dropped the 'r' word, Blayne. Bringing that into the discussion is a major change of subject.
How it affects his relationship with his wife isn't the issue, and not because it's a private issue. The country does have a vested interest in the judgment of its elected officials, surely you'll agree to that? His platform not being 'family values' is also irrelevant to that point.
Now if you want to talk about Congress as a whole, or how his judgment stacked up compared to so many other members, that's fine. That's also not what we were discussing. So that's, what, three or four substantial changes of subject you've introduced in a two paragraph post?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You mentioned it being an issue of "consent" the only thing he did was show a racy but not entirely rated R picture of himself on the internet, if you are on the internet and do not practice safe browsing you "consented". It may not have been appreciated but it isn't clear how this can undermine his voting record or stances on progressive principles.
I mentioned him in the first place because he struck me as one of the few decent liberal representatives in the US Congress and his leaving was disappointing and his inability to handle such a minor and trivial scandal equally so. When you have an overall congress so terrible that all decorum has long since flown out the window anyways ("you lie!") it hurts all the more as he was one of the few decent ones left.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, he didn't just put the pics ouit there; he sent them to people unsolicited. It is the internet equivalent of going up to someone and flashing them. Offensive and, in some cases, criminal. FWIW, I have no trouble with grown ups who have asked for such pictures exchanging them.
Believe me, I miss him in Congress even more than you do, but criminy what bad judgement!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
Others have mentioned it, so I'll simply agree with them: consent is not only an issue in cases of rape, and everything below rape in seriousness doesn't involve consent.
As for how it damages his causes, does him being a dummy with poor judgment online have any bearing on the truth or falsehood of his politics on, say, foreign affairs such as Iraq and Afghanistan? Well obviously not. I didn't suggest it did. Does his behavior have an impact on the politics surrounding those things? Absolutely. Case in point: resignation. That's an impact right there. Politically speaking, every argument he makes becomes immediately weaker because he's got that hanging over his head.
If he'd done something that would otherwise be foolish in an attempt to, say, change the system so it wasn't so twisted, that'd be one thing. He didn't do that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps talking about the fact that several of your expensive cars are American made is not the best way to "connect" with the poor and middle class in Michigan.
quote: “I drive a Mustang and Chevy pickup truck,” he said. “Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually. I used to have a Dodge truck, so I used to have all three [Detroit manufacturers] covered.”
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The part about the Mustang and Chevy pickup isn't so bad. I've known plenty of people who have a daily driver and a pickup for hauling stuff around. And what he said doesn't indicate that they're expensive. It's the "couple of Cadillacs" that gets me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Not that this helps much with the "failing to connect" issue, but it seems Ann uses two cars because they split time between two homes, one in California and the other in New Hampshire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As a Michigander, I thought most of his references were ridiculous. It's the sort of thing I'd expect someone to say if they'd never actually been to Michigan but read an index card with a short list of words associated with Michigan "trees, lakes, cars..." But to talk bout not just the Great Lakes but all the great inland lakes and our magnificently perfect tree height after talking about how he's a native son is just ridiculous. The man didn't have ONE anecdote about a vacation or something he took in Michigan to an actual place? I usually give candidates a break for being too wooden, but Romney looks more and more like a robot every day when he can barely describe his "home state" in human terms.
I did, perhaps, appreciate that he talked about Michigan's nature-loving side as much as he did its manufacturing-loving side. For too long politicians have treated Michigan politics as "hug a tree, kill a Chrysler," but that doesn't actually reflect Michiganders at all. We love the outdoors, and we love our environment.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What does it mean for the trees to be the right height, anyway?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Taller than the ones that are too short, and shorter than the ones that are too tall.
Didn't anyone every read you Little Red Riding Hood when you were a kid?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or Goldilocks and the Three Bears anyway.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Do you mean Goldilocks? I don't remember anything in Little Red Riding Hood about things being just right.
Edit: Or what kmboots said.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pete, I would so love to see Gov. Romney use that as justification. "But, we need all those cars because we have all those houses. Hee!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Just look at the trees in the other states, like Mississippi or New York state.
They're obviously the wrong height.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Do you mean Goldilocks?
I should totally bluff my way out of this with crazy claims about alternate versions of LRRH.
Nah. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
With all those trips through the woods to Grandma's house, Red Riding Hood should have some fairly impressive arboreal observations.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What does it mean for the trees to be the right height, anyway?
It was a way of saying that the place just looked like home to him.
When I moved from Kansas to Ohio, one of the things that struck me as different about the was the trees. They're huge here, both in girth thw up with. I find the trees here beautiful, and actually prefer them to the ones I grew up seeing, but I could understand it if a fellow Kansan, when going home, felt on some level that there was a rightness to the trees there that didn't exist elsewhere.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Or, you know, he didn't have anything else pre-prepared to say about trees but felt that some sort of tree-associated comment was called for.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What does it mean for the trees to be the right height, anyway?
It was a way of saying that the place just looked like home to him.
When I moved from Kansas to Ohio, one of the things that struck me as different about the was the trees. They're huge here, both in girth thw up with. I find the trees here beautiful, and actually prefer them to the ones I grew up seeing, but I could understand it if a fellow Kansan, when going home, felt on some level that there was a rightness to the trees there that didn't exist elsewhere.
This I can relate to. The trees in Nebraska are nothing like back home in Michigan, both in composition and the sheer lack of trees. Where are all the forests out here?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Or, you know, he didn't have anything else pre-prepared to say about trees but felt that some sort of tree-associated comment was called for.
Nah. I listened to it back when he first said it, and it seemed pretty clear that it was what he was going for. He stumbled all over it, but you know.
Lyrhawn, I know; it's all scrub wood, or at least most of it is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romney’s lameness as a candidate, in Santorum’s strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party. “Compared to 2008, all the candidates are way to the right of John McCain,” says longtime conservative activist Jeff Bell. “The fact that Romney is running with basically the same views as then but is seen as too moderate tells you that the base has moved rightward and doesn’t simply want a conservative candidate—it wants a very conservative one.”
quote:To a large extent, Romney’s concurrent problems with conservatives and independents are of his own making. His campaign’s incineration of Gingrich in Florida, though perhaps necessary and certainly skillful, also contributed mightily to alienating the center while doing nothing to remedy his main malady in the eyes of conservatives: the absence of a positive message that resonates with them, coupled with a tic-like tendency to commit unforced errors that exacerbate their doubts that he is one of their own. Crystallizing this phenomenon was an episode that took place the morning after Florida, when, on CNN, Romney disgorged another gem: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”
With these few short sentences in what should have been a moment of triumph for him, Romney managed to send the wrong message to an array of factions. To independent voters, “I’m not concerned about the very poor” sounds callous. To conservative intellectuals and activists, talk about fixing the safety net—as opposed to pursuing policies that enable the poor to free themselves from government dependency—is rank apostasy. And to congressional Republicans, the comment reflected a glaring lack of familiarity with the party’s anti-poverty positions. “Electeds were flabbergasted,” says a veteran K Street player. “Even moderate Republican members, if they’ve been here for more than four months, get dipped in the empowerment agenda.”
A week later, Romney attempted to repair part of the damage with his speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference—and promptly put his foot in it again. In an address in which he employed the word conservative or some variation of it 24 times, as if trying to prove he is a member of the tribe through sheer incantation, his use of the adverb severely to express the depth of his conviction raised eyebrows inside and outside the hall. “The most retarded thing I have ever heard a Republican candidate say” was the verdict of one strategist with ample experience in GOP presidential campaigns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he gets the nomination though, as soon as the primaries are over, he'll undergo a Jekyll and Hyde like transformation into a moderate titan. I think it'll be more problematic than in past years, because GOP candidates have rarely been forced to spout the extreme right dogma he's had to say. Retreating from those positions will be impossible, and Obama will carpet bomb swing states with large populations of independents with ads that just show Romney talking. That's all it will take. Winning the GOP nomination this time around will severely weaken any of them.
What remains is what happens in 2016. A lot of people suspect that if Romney wins the nom and loses the general, the GOP will figure it's because they didn't nominate a TRUE conservative, so they'll dig even deeper into the well four years from now and they'll lose even worse. If they hitch their cart to someone like Santorum and lose, then they'll actually have to reevaluate their principles and ask themselves why they lost being so true to their convictions. Hard to say what will happen from there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kind of a funny story, Rick Santorum has been running robo-calls in Michigan encouraging Democrats to go out and vote for him. You can apparently switch parties very temporarily there so that you can be a Republican for just long enough to vote in the primary.
So the pitch is "Vote for me, I have a much worse chance of winning the general than Mitt does."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't have to switch parties. In Michigan, you never register under a party to begin with.
And judging from the posts I've seen from friends on Facebook, they were all planning an anti-Mitt Santorum vote well before robocalls started going out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Welp.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, open primaries. Accurately representing the interests of the people since... uh... well...
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
quote: Ah, open primaries. Accurately representing the interests of the people since... uh... well...
While it's true that some people game the system in some open primaries, I think open primaries are more likely to produce candidates that Americans are comfortable with than closed ones do. If all the primaries were open, we could still end up with "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich", but I think it's slightly less likely.
Closed primaries allow the nutjobs at both ends of the political spectrum inordinate control over the eventual candidates.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ah, open primaries. Accurately representing the interests of the people since... uh... well...
I think you'll find the actual number of people on the opposite side who sabotage vote is fairly small. Consider that turnout in general for primaries is usually very, very small, and even less so for some people when you have a sitting president running for reelection. The number of people who make a special trip out to register a protest vote that matters even less than a ideologically pure vote is small. They only affect the outcome when the results are incredibly close.
On the other hand, I abhor the idea of having to register with a party. I like open primaries, I like the flexibility it brings, and I think the idea of having to so officially choose sides is wrong.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BBegley:
quote: Ah, open primaries. Accurately representing the interests of the people since... uh... well...
While it's true that some people game the system in some open primaries, I think open primaries are more likely to produce candidates that Americans are comfortable with than closed ones do. If all the primaries were open, we could still end up with "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich", but I think it's slightly less likely.
Closed primaries allow the nutjobs at both ends of the political spectrum inordinate control over the eventual candidates.
I think your last sentence is correct, and to me it seems like that reduces the first point you make.
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting. I read the giant douche/turd sandwich thing the same way I read the old Simpsons Kang/Kodos thing, which is that the candidates are too similar.
Closed primaries seem more likely to field the idealogues in each party, which means the choice at election day would be between a stark contrast of viewpoints. No Kang/Kodos problem there!
That being said, I can also see that fielding moderates from both parties is preferable to relatively moderate-minded folk like Lyrhawn. But the possibility of abusive fraud (like you admitted your friends plan on committing, Lyr, before you wrote it off as inconsequential) is a huge turnoff for me.
Edit: I think I see the idea of open primaries sort of the way I see people arguing against the 2-party system. It sounds sort of nice and free and open, but I'm not convinced the reality necessarily reflects the dream.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In other Republican news...
Olympia Snowe is retiring. That's the end of an era. She's one of the last moderate Republicans left in government at all, let alone the Senate, and she was often a swing vote voice of moderation. Her and Susan Collins made a great team.
But with her retiring, what does that mean for the senate, especially the GOP's chances for retaking it? Is there another "Maine" Republican waiting in the wings? Or does her retirement hand the seat off to a moderate Democrat?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Proportional Representation.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting. I read the giant douche/turd sandwich thing the same way I read the old Simpsons Kang/Kodos thing, which is that the candidates are too similar.
He said "...we could still end up with "G... vs. T...", but I think it's slightly less likely...", meaning that's what we have under the status quo, with primarily closed primaries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:That being said, I can also see that fielding moderates from both parties is preferable to relatively moderate-minded folk like Lyrhawn. But the possibility of abusive fraud (like you admitted your friends plan on committing, Lyr, before you wrote it off as inconsequential) is a huge turnoff for me.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
Let's say there are two kinds of votes: a positive vote and a negative vote. A positive vote is when you vote for someone you support. A negative vote is a vote cast in order to stop someone you abhor.
Why is one better than the other? You have a vote which you are allowed to use as you see fit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Rick Santorum’s campaign is locked in a tight battle with Mitt Romney ahead of Tuesday’s Michigan primary. On Monday his camp started openly courting a demographic that’s not often reached out to in GOP primaries: Democrats.
Michigan’s primary rules allow Dems to vote in the state’s GOP primaries. The liberal site DailyKos and other progressive partners have been trying to drum up enthusiasm for “Operation Hilarity” - an effort to get Democrats to vote in the GOP primary and tilt the vote against Mitt Romney. The Santorum campaign evidently decided they’d take votes from any legitimate source.
Following some speculation that the robocall may have been a “false flag” effort designed to harm Santorum, a spokesman Hogan Gidley confirmed to TPM that they were indeed footing the bill, and reaching beyond party lines. “If we can get the Reagan Democrats in the primary, we can get them in the general,” he told TPM.
It’s a controversial tactic. Bill Ballenger, a longtime Michigan politico and the editor of Inside Michigan Politics, spoke with TPM about the call earlier in the day. He said the call piqued his interest because it sounded like it could have come from a union targeting Romney ahead of the Feb. 28 primary. The call focuses on Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout and calls on Democrats to vote for Santorum Tuesday because of it.
“It went on and on like this and I kept listening because I kind of smelled a rat,” Ballenger said. “And finally at the very end, in a tagline it says, ‘this call was paid for by the Santorum for president committee.’” TPM readers in Michigan reported Monday receiving the same robocall as Ballenger. TPM Reader BG emailed in to say he’d received a robocall where the “voice sounded Union-ish” and “said the word ‘Democrats’ repeatedly, though not as a derogatory label.” He stayed on to hear who claimed the call in the tagline at the end and “yup, it was from the official Santorum campaign.”
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other Republican news...
Olympia Snowe is retiring. That's the end of an era. She's one of the last moderate Republicans left in government at all, let alone the Senate, and she was often a swing vote voice of moderation. Her and Susan Collins made a great team.
But with her retiring, what does that mean for the senate, especially the GOP's chances for retaking it? Is there another "Maine" Republican waiting in the wings? Or does her retirement hand the seat off to a moderate Democrat?
This is oft repeated, but no truer for the frequent repititions thereof. Several of the Freshman GOP class are significantly moderate, like Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, Dan Coats and Kelly Ayotte in the Senate, and numerous members of the House. The truth is that the 2010 wave, as is true with most national waves (such as 2006 and 2008), washed out many of the moderates from the losing party (bye-bye Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh) and washed in many from the other.
As to the electoral prospects for the GOP or Dems in Maine, I'd think Dems have the early edge just because both US Reps are Democrats. I imagine the best bet for a competitive race will be if one of the runners-up to Paul LePage in the 2010 gubernatorial primary is the GOP nominee; maybe Peter Mills or Steve Abbott.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: TPM Reader BG emailed in to say he’d received a robocall where the “voice sounded Union-ish”
I have no idea what a "union-ish" voice is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In other Republican news...
Olympia Snowe is retiring. That's the end of an era. She's one of the last moderate Republicans left in government at all, let alone the Senate, and she was often a swing vote voice of moderation. Her and Susan Collins made a great team.
But with her retiring, what does that mean for the senate, especially the GOP's chances for retaking it? Is there another "Maine" Republican waiting in the wings? Or does her retirement hand the seat off to a moderate Democrat?
This is oft repeated, but no truer for the frequent repititions thereof. Several of the Freshman GOP class are significantly moderate, like Scott Brown, Mark Kirk, Dan Coats and Kelly Ayotte in the Senate, and numerous members of the House. The truth is that the 2010 wave, as is true with most national waves (such as 2006 and 2008), washed out many of the moderates from the losing party (bye-bye Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh) and washed in many from the other.
As to the electoral prospects for the GOP or Dems in Maine, I'd think Dems have the early edge just because both US Reps are Democrats. I imagine the best bet for a competitive race will be if one of the runners-up to Paul LePage in the 2010 gubernatorial primary is the GOP nominee; maybe Peter Mills or Steve Abbott.
We'll see. Moderate means something different now than it used to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: TPM Reader BG emailed in to say he’d received a robocall where the “voice sounded Union-ish”
I have no idea what a "union-ish" voice is.
Maybe it sounded like one of the guys from NPR's Car Talk.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I imagine a Union rep sounds a lot like someone from Brooklyn.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you've been watching too much Newsies.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Moderate means something different now than it used to.
What do you think it used to mean? For example, I doubt there was an elected Republican in the nation 20 years ago that would support the current median Republican position on gay marriage. I don't think there's some Platonic ideal of moderation; it changes as the issues change.
That said, on a quantitative level, I think the DW-NOMINATE system is pretty good at giving a rough estimate of this issue. And, to be fair, it does show a Republican party moving strongly to the right. So I think there's a good case that the average Republican is more conservative than he once was, but that's a somewhat different statement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Santorum due to win MI.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's down for the moment.
My cousins, who are avowed Christian evangelicals, voted for Santorum.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: That's hilarious, although it's a little scary sharing a provincial/state border with the place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm wondering: how soon do y'all think (if anyone thinks this, that is) that the GOP side of this election will morph into 'setup for 2016'? I believe I first heard that kind of talk on either Talk of the Nation or It's All Politics, as well as in this thread. I simply don't buy into the notion that a lengthy, bitterly contested primary serves the eventual Republican nominee if that primary sees all candidates drive to the right. If it were driving to the center, I could see there being a strong case for this being good for Republicans.
What do Hatrack's various political nerds and watchers think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Conventional wisdom states that a hotly contested primary can give a candidate energy and momentum going into the general election...but this primary has been incredibly damaging for everyone in the party. It's driven candidates so far to the right that when they eventually have to tack back to the center, as they always do, it'll be nearly impossible to walk back from some of those statements. Also, many have noted that Primary enthusiasm is down almost across the board for the GOP, as opposed to 2010 numbers. They're not going to have the turnout advantage they had two years ago. There's also money to consider. Obama is banking while big money candidates like Romney burn cash in states they never planned to contest at all, like Michigan.
I think the 2012 crop is dominated by those who aren't running. All the people that have been talked about for months, like Jindal, Daniels, Bush, and Christie all stayed out of what would have probably been an easy win for most of them, probably because they felt it was Mitt's turn. Or, because they didn't think Obama was going to be easy enough to beat and wanted to wait for clearer skies.
So is this a setup for 2012? In what sense? I don't think we'll see any of the current crop of candidates again in 2016 (well, except Ron Paul maybe), unless the party goes through a major identity crisis. In 2016, one of those who stayed on the sidelines this year will step up, and all these also-rans will be crushed.
Besides, no one in the party leadership likes the idea of "setting up" a further election by throwing the current one. Too much long term damage can be done waiting another four years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: That's hilarious, although it's a little scary sharing a provincial/state border with the place.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am the real BB.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think a couple of candidates have potentially set themselves up for a stronger 2016 run than they otherwise would have had, particularly Jon Huntsman. I also think that whomever gets the VP slot could have a strong claim to being "set up" for 2016 if Mitt's run isn't successful (or 2020 if it is).
My early prognostication for the 2016 Democratic ticket is Cuomo-Villaraigosa.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
What do you all think of the rumblings that the convention is going be changed to a delegated one, with an emphasis on finding a candidate who isn't one of the current four?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I am the real BB.
Maybe. I've been referred to as BB since 1996.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I imagine the GOP splitting then, no way with a race this contentious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think a couple of candidates have potentially set themselves up for a stronger 2016 run than they otherwise would have had, particularly Jon Huntsman. I also think that whomever gets the VP slot could have a strong claim to being "set up" for 2016 if Mitt's run isn't successful (or 2020 if it is).
My early prognostication for the 2016 Democratic ticket is Cuomo-Villaraigosa.
That depends on a few people turning it down. Both parties are about to turn things over to the next generation of politicians. The Democrats have already sort of done it with Obama, but if Biden or Clinton want it, it's theirs. Clinton has downplayed the chances, but she's incredibly popular, and her and Bill would be an incredible force on the campaign trail. Plus no one can say she doesn't have experience after 4 years as SecState and a few as a senator. She can run on the things from Obama she likes and jettison the ones she doesn't. There's also the whole "first woman president" thing. Then I think she picks a young white guy as her VP.
But she still might say no. I guess she'll be 8 years older than when she tried last time, but she just seems to be one of those people that can't put it down, and never got her turn.
I'm crossing my fingers for Russ Feingold. He was ousted in 2010, but he's the real thing.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Feingold would be incredible. However, he's flatly stated in two recent interviews that he has no interest in being president or doing what it takes to become president. I also don't think he could truly survive a strong GOP push.
In essence, the very qualities that make him the "real thing" make him unelectable these days.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Question: Who do people think is likely to be Secretary of State if Obama is re-elected?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Might he reach out to someone like Huntsman? His foreign credentials are pretty dang good.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nope. Huntsman wants to be on the GOP ticket in 2016, and he can't do that having been Obama's SecState. Huntsman was already hammered for being the Ambassador to China. It's a shame too, because I think he'd be great for the post.
Don't forget the magic scenario a lot of people still hope for, where Clinton and Biden do the swappitydo.
Human -
I suppose I agree. If Feingold stuck to his principles on campaign finance, he'd be crushed in funding alone...but maybe he'd go down as a powerful message to the nation on his singular issue.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Lyr: Well, I can think of some ways that he might--if he was willing to go with some cutting-edge, radical approaches--that he could make up some of the money difference. I just don't think that the nation much cares about the stuff he stands for anymore.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What sort of cutting edge radical approaches can you think of that would raise massive sums of money without breaking his ideological opposition to campaign finance as it stands?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I'm not so much thinking of raising tons of money as getting around the need to. I think there are plenty of internet-based, grass-roots strategies that could be cobbled together that would reach the moderate demographic without needing to spend the millions of dollars a more conventional campaign requires.
Even then, keep in mind that I'm not sure it would work. For one thing, I think most of the voters that would be most effectively reached with that kind of tactical approach are either completely burned out/disillusioned or didn't care in the first place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Feingold would be incredible. However, he's flatly stated in two recent interviews that he has no interest in being president or doing what it takes to become president.
If Feingold were even slightly interested in the presidency, he should be running for the position of governor of Wisconsin in the upcoming recall, like pretty much everyone in Wisconsin wishes he would do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Have candidates for that race started to declare?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, a couple. No one compelling, sadly.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Question: Who do people think is likely to be Secretary of State if Obama is re-elected?
My guess is John Kerry. He wanted it back in 2008 and he wants it still. He's been hauling a lot of water on foreign policy as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, as well as taking an active role in Pakistan and the Middle East.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Feingold would be incredible. However, he's flatly stated in two recent interviews that he has no interest in being president or doing what it takes to become president.
If Feingold were even slightly interested in the presidency, he should be running for the position of governor of Wisconsin in the upcoming recall, like pretty much everyone in Wisconsin wishes he would do.
That would be good.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
From what little I've heard, Feingold is pretty burnt out on politics. He wants to help people, he definitely has a political agenda, but...he doesn't feel like there's much point in the current system, and I don't really blame him. He got smashed pretty hard by the Tea Party voters last time around.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Santorum ought to declare a fatwah on Obama any day now.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I scored "Supreme Leader". It didn't seem that hard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank -
Hasn't he already?
Santorum's problem isn't so much that he wants to wage a religious war on Obama, it's that he's promoting an absolutely RIDICULOUS Victim Card in his discourse on religion. Have you heard the BS he's spewing lately about the separation of church and state? He's completely removed from reality. There's no secular test in this country, there's a RELIGION test. Americans are more likely to elect a Muslim than an atheist. There is exactly ONE atheist in Congress. There has never been a professed atheist president. His claims of victimhood are just a piece of his wackadoodle religious rhetoric.
He's not Khamenei, but it sure as hell seems like they both took the same Hyperbole 101 online course.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyr: Has he? So you're equating literal calls for murder to wackadoodle christian rhetoric?
Those are equivalent?
Really?
I think Santorum and Khamenei aren't the only ones who took that course, man.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I forgot my winky face. That first part was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I totally meant the rest. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Santorum ought to declare a fatwah on Obama any day now.
The fact that Santorum isn't in a position of power to enforce his stated views whereas the Grand Ayatollah is, is kind of a strange defence.
Are we not supposed to point out things in advance?
Edit to add: Not sure what the later comments on calls for murder are responding to. Going through the statements in the article, none of the statements from either figure seem to deal with murder of political opponents.
[ February 29, 2012, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
That's a good point; party loyalty for both parties has risen consistently since about 1970. I'd assumed that was just reflecting the post-Civil Rights ideological realignment as conservative Dems and liberal Republicans switched sides, but maybe the increased use of the filibuster (which really started its own continual growth in the mid-1980s, IIRC) is part of the story too. But keep in mind that, while the GOPs use of the filibuster has increased, so has the Democrats (although admittedly not to the same level). So whatever "watering down" effect you see in the Dems bills, there's a somewhat commensurate effect among the Republicans.
Furthermore, party loyalty in voting has been very similar between the parties for the last fifty years. That kind of persistent correlation indicates to me that the parties have had, and still have, roughly equivalent levels of cohesion and ideological purity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyr: Has he? So you're equating literal calls for murder to wackadoodle christian rhetoric?
Those are equivalent?
Really?
I think Santorum and Khamenei aren't the only ones who took that course, man.
Here's a question: how close to Khomeini levels of awfulness do you think Santorum would get, if he weren't inhibited by a whole lot of foundational laws as well as American politics-if he would get any farther along that spectrum than he is now?
I don't ask this because I think anything Santorum has done is comparable to a largely uncaring theocracy, or because I feel the question can be answered reliably. But...I just get a really strong vibe off Santorum, as socially conservative as he is and as totally uninterested in non-socially conservative, Christian right America as he seems to be, that 'religious freedom' is not actually something he believes in, or would keep if he could. If there were some way to actually use the power of government (be permitted to use, really) to just enact a bunch of things whereby Christianity is not just unofficially but across the board, publicly, acknowledged by government and afforded extra rights, powers, and voice in America...that I think he would do it. I mean 'think' in a cut sense sort of worry/fear/mistrust.
I think Santorum is about as far right as one can get in American politics and have a shot at anything meaningful, and I don't feel that he's not *further* right because he's in the position that he thinks is right and proper-I think he would probably be quite a lot further right if he could, and still have a national voice. That might be a clearer way of saying things.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's an interesting perspective, Rakeesh. You may be right. I generally try to assess people (left and right) based on what they say, rather than what I think they really mean or really wanted to say. Nevertheless, I think your interpretation is an understandable one.
Even accepting your premise, though, do I think he would reach the level of Khamenei? Not really, no. He might be a hell of a lot closer to that than I would ever like in a US elected official, but I still think the assertion is hyperbole.
Mucus: I think the point of conflating their quotes is to conflate the figures. No? So taking each person as a whole and deciding if the comparison is merited seems logical, to me.
Edit: I'll also come clean and admit that I at first mistakenly thought it was comparing Santorum to former Ayatollah Khomeini, as opposed to current Ayatollah Khamenei. I wonder if I'm the only one who did this (based on Rakeesh's spelling, I think I'm not, but I don't know for sure).
Anyway, the former explicitly called for the murder of various people (like Rushdie) because of what they had said, which is something I honestly don't think Santorum even secretly wants to do. I don't know offhand what fatwas the latter has issued, so I suppose it's possible he's a bit less insane, in which case the comparison is that much more warranted.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think he's out there, but I don't think he's motivated by religious beliefs as much as by power. He's showing that he'll say what he thinks needs to be said to gain more power. He's shooting the moon, alienating the moderates by affirming some pretty hardline stances to get cozier with the extreme right. I think the power motive came out pretty clearly when he tried to appeal to Michigan Democrats in the primary. He would do that for power.
That said, I wouldn't want him anywhere near the White House.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Mucus: I think the point of conflating their quotes is to conflate the figures. No? So taking each person as a whole and deciding if the comparison is merited seems logical, to me.
I didn't really read it like that, for two reasons. First, the author is Iranian-American (and looking further, his area of specialization is extremist religion, particularly Islam). So I was more thinking that this was supposed to be a cautionary message, as in "here's one man with this kind of views in my ancestral homeland, you know what he did with power. This guy here in America with the same views, you probably don't want to put him in power."
Second, I don't think that giving fatwas that command people to be killed is precisely a personality trait. Rather it's about what power a person has and what power a sizeable fraction of society has given him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Santorum is gonna get 17 delegates out of Michigan to Mitt's 13. Yesss
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: From an outside perspective your moderate republicans never seemed to ever been willing to break with republicans to support a moderate cause.
I think one of the comments on the article is apropos, in that, for the Senate at least, the party unity of the Dems is impacted by the continued use of the filibuster by the GOP. All the "lack of unity" is built in to weaker legislation to get the necessary number of votes to reach the floor.
That's a good point; party loyalty for both parties has risen consistently since about 1970. I'd assumed that was just reflecting the post-Civil Rights ideological realignment as conservative Dems and liberal Republicans switched sides, but maybe the increased use of the filibuster (which really started its own continual growth in the mid-1980s, IIRC) is part of the story too. But keep in mind that, while the GOPs use of the filibuster has increased, so has the Democrats (although admittedly not to the same level). So whatever "watering down" effect you see in the Dems bills, there's a somewhat commensurate effect among the Republicans.
Furthermore, party loyalty in voting has been very similar between the parties for the last fifty years. That kind of persistent correlation indicates to me that the parties have had, and still have, roughly equivalent levels of cohesion and ideological purity.
A fair point in return I wonder though, if you could do an analysis of, say "landmark" bills", and see how many people bolt from the their side, controlling for the party of the president, and who holds which majorities in Congress.
EDIT: I think pinpointing "NO" votes would be the most interesting. Find bills were the minority party is strongly against the bill publicly (via leadership comments), and then see how many defect to "yes" votes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't have a lot of time, but I assume you've all been watching Limbaugh's slutshaming spree.
What. The. Hell.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is, capax? So the GOP sides of this controversy, they say, "If you don't want the pill for contraception but for another reason, we say it should be covered." That's what they say, right, capax? Right? Because if they didn't, it's your response that is the red herring.
Tell me something, capax, do you think there might be a pretty good number of women needing medical attention for the sorts of things mentioned in that link? Huh?
But, hey, conservative base's wet dream calls a woman a slut and a prostitute, but let's talk about what the 'vast majority' of women-approximately what percentage do, then? Do you even know? If so, love to hear before you go look it up.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is, capax? So the GOP sides of this controversy, they say, "If you don't want the pill for contraception but for another reason, we say it should be covered." That's what they say, right, capax? Right? Because if they didn't, it's your response that is the red herring.
Check your tone as well as what I said: the most common reason for using contraceptives is contraception. I didn't say there weren't other reasons.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
To start with, were taking about hormonal contraceptives, specifically the pill - an IUD, for example, does nothing for an ovarian cyct or heavy menstral periods, etc. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes." So I take back my "vast, vast majority" comment. It's merely a significantly large majority.*
If a doctor has diagnosed a woman with a medical condition that could be remedied or aleviated using hormonal treatments - treatments which ALSO have contraceptive effects - that, as I stated, is a different discussion.
*According to this survey. The Guttmacher Institute is a know left-leaning institution and their bias shouldn't be discounted but for the sake of argument their study is the only one I felt incline to cite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I read what you said. It referred to mention of non-contraceptive uses as red herrings, in response to someone else bringing them up. It would be fine if you'd only said that most uses are for contraception. You didn't, though-it's a 'red herring'.
You also didn't answer my question about whether or not Republicans are offering a compromise to handle this very substantial portion of women.
But hey, capax? While we're talking about bias? How's about that Rush Limbaugh calling a woman speaking on public policy a slut and a prostitute? Hmm? Or shall we just refer to liberal bias?
Man, keep your freaking party out of people's GD bedrooms. Ugh.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I read what you said. It referred to mention of non-contraceptive uses as red herrings, in response to someone else bringing them up. It would be fine if you'd only said that most uses are for contraception. You didn't, though-it's a 'red herring'.
I have a feeling you're trying to make an argument out of this. I said it's a red herring to suggest that using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is the reason for the controversy.
I don't think either side has sought to honestly address the use of hormonal contraceptives for other medical uses. I see viable solutions which could be reached if the debate stayed on track.
quote:Man, keep your freaking party out of people's GD bedrooms. Ugh.
The issue of contraception moves beyond the bedroom when it comes to who's paying for and providing the contraception. In addition to the medical and moral facets of this issue, there is the financial one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really? How much do you want to examine the financial impact of easily accessed contraception, capax?
On the one hand, you're right about what you said about red herrings and the reason for the controversy. I misread you, and I apologize. On the other hand, your mention of a red herring was itself a straw man-Bella Bee didn't say or suggest that that was the reason for the controversy.
As for who's paying for it and who's providing it, strange, isn't it, the double-standard? When social conservatives insist government not do things they feel are morally awful, they cry foul of religious freedom. And yet, they're not the only members of society, and having a definition of morality thrust on others by what their own government can and cannot do for religious reasone-*that's* not an infringement.
Making a very loose comparison, when a Christian says, "Merry Christmas!" it is, to many, a kindhearted greeting or farewell. To some others, though, when someone days, "Happy Kwanzaa!" or "Happy Holidays!" or "Cheerful Equinox!", it's an attack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The issue of contraception moves beyond the bedroom when it comes to who's paying for and providing the contraception. In addition to the medical and moral facets of this issue, there is the financial one.
Not really.
Most insurance companies don't have a particular problem with providing contraceptives; it's employers who are throwing a hissy fit.
Covering pregnancies is a standard, established form of coverage. It's assumed that good coverage will include at least some form of basic care for checkups and the actual delivery, etc. Now, for the insurance company, what's cheaper, a pregnancy that goes all the way to delivery, or paying for a few pills? It a basic cost-benefit analysis, contraceptives are considerably cheaper than pregnancies.
So if you're going to make the argument that sexual choices as they relate to financial burdens on health care companies means society has a say in it, then you have to make the argument that larger forces be allowed to decide when you're allowed to have kids, how big your family will be, etc. And I think as a society we've already decided that the more kids the merrier, otherwise we wouldn't subsidize big families as much as we do. Regardless though, if someone told you to stop having sex because your child production was a larger societal financial concern, you'd be pretty roundly attacked from both sides.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I hate the birth control debate. I have been on birth control for most of my life not because I was sexually active but because I have endometriosis and my life is hell without it. But, nice to know that the only reason I take the pills is so I can have lots of consequence free sex.
Also, doesn't the pill decrease libido (or is that just me)? So, if we want to cut down on sex, we should put everyone on it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy.
So, what's the reason for Limbaugh's take on the controversy? Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:because I have endometriosis and my life is hell without it.
That was kind of where I was going with this. Some employers would clearly rather pay sick leave every month than allow medication which would help deal with the problem.
Posted by Shanon1331 (Member # 12786) on :
So what exactly IS the problem with using contraception for contraception anyway? Nearly 7 billion people on a planet able to sustain less than half that number for any extended period of time. And that number is expected to double within this century. We are supposed to hate abortion, and contraception is an evil as well. What does the reasoning mind say this will lead to as far as population numbers go? Massive starvation, soil stripped to uselessness, global destruction due to GM crops, fertilizers, etc... trying to produce enough food, massive water shortages, more desperate wars for resources, poverty on scales never even dreamed of in history, on and on... Or a little tiny pill and discussions about the appropriateness of sexual choices left in the churches where it belongs.
Let me just vocalize what most of us know we feel. How many sexual encounters I choose to have is none of any other man or woman's business.
Libaugh has no children and has been married for many a year. Either hes impotent and has, as usual, no idea what he's talking about, or he's a hyppocritical jackass. I vote all of the above.
Posted by Shanon1331 (Member # 12786) on :
Lol, and here I am sitting on a computer on a saturday night, typing on a forum on a science fiction novel website. Sex? What is that again?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Shanon, if you have sex, you must be punished for it by having a baby. If you want to have no babies, you should do the morally acceptable thing and have no sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
I was going to challenge this, but I see lower down you correct it.
There's a couple of other bizarre mistaken ideas in Limbaugh's rants. First, as has been alluded to, hormonal birth control costs the same no matter how much sex with how many partners you are having. Second, monogamous couples have, on average, much more sex than non-monogamous singles. So, even if birth control did cost more per use, it would be the people having sex with the same person who would be pay more.
Honestly, this story started out bizarre and misogynistic. This started as part of a Republican dominated panel contraception. Said panel was made up of all men and all the witnesses were men. When the Democrats tried to bring one female to testify, she was barred...and then Rush Limbaugh - a man who has repeatedly cheated on and then divorced his wives and who doesn't seem to have a basic understanding of how birth control works - called her a slut and then demanded to be able to watch video of her having sex.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Shanon, if you have sex, you must be punished for it by having a baby. If you want to have no babies, you should do the morally acceptable thing and have no sex.
Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
It's an absurdly simplistic discussion we're having. Rush Limbaugh's living up to his MO as a jerk, but the reflexive umbrage-taking has led to some ridiculous statements, even from people who are normally relatively rational. Witness Chuck Schumer saying the Blunt Amendment "amounts to a contraception ban." Since the Amendment would, for a limited number of employers, simply preserve the status quo Schumer's claim implies our current situation amounts to contraception ban, and has since, well, always! That's some clear-headed thinking from the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Also, today Limbaugh released a statement that reads, in part, "In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke...I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices." You can doubt the sincerity of his apology, but at least in this instance he did, in fact, say sorry for being a jerk. Although not for being wrong; that would be too much.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
In actual political news, Romney's having a surprisingly good night in Washington. Just two weeks ago a lot of smart people were betting on Washington's social conservatives to give Santorum a win there, but Romney's currently (with 59% of precincts counted) got 37% with Paul and Santorum essentially ties at 24.5%.
For all the hand-wringing about Romney's weakness, the truth is his win/loss record in the early primaries is better than either Obama or McCain in 2008. Of the 12 pre-Super Tuesday races he's won eight outright (5 by double digits if WA holds up), and effectively tied in a ninth. Not that there aren't real weaknesses there (the drop-off in participation levels from 2008 is troubling), but I think a lot of the concern is overblown.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Tuesday is the final word, assuming Santorum can't tie up Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Super Tuesday is likely to be a pretty rough day for Romney. I predict he'll win Vermont, Massachusetts, Idaho and Virginia, but he'll almost surely lose Georgia (to Gingrich), and Oklahoma and Tennessee (to Santorum) by large margins. I don't think he'll make it over the top in Ohio, which is what'll drive the media narrative as everyone spends another couple of cycles opining on contested conventions and whether Jeb Bush would accept the nomination. Alaska and North Dakota are harder to predict, but I'm guessing based on their demographic similarity to Minnesota that Santorum wins them as well. So my guess is he goes 4/10 on Tuesday (although he'll probably win the overall delegate battle for the day after collecting all the delegates from MA and VA).
Then the next week he'll probably lose Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi (although I'm guessing he'll win in Hawaii and a handful of smaller territories like Guam and American Samoa). Which is all to say that the next two weeks will probably have a significant adverse impact on his (thus far pretty respectable) winning percentage. Still, I'm guessing he'll end up 150-200 ahead in the delegate race by the end of the month, and that that lead will slowly expand throughout the contest until he wraps up the nomination after winning the CA primary.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Don't know how important this sort of thing is anymore, but Romney did pick up a couple important newspaper endorsements in Ohio today, from the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
I do think that winning Ohio and keeping things close (mid-to-low single digits) in Oklahoma and Tennessee will go a long way to shaping the narrative. I think if that happens he'll be perceived as having 'won' Super Tuesday, regardless of what happens elsewhere.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Because there can be no other medical reason to take the pill except having lots of sex with random men? He clearly doesn't even know many women very well. (By contrast, in Britain, contraceptive pills even have a prescription charge waiver, so they're completely free at the pharmacy).
I hope this time people actually wake up to how hateful this guy is of women.
Using contraceptive pills for other medical conditions is a totally different discussion. It's a red herring to suggest that's the reason for the controversy. The vast, vast majority of women use contraceptives for contraception.
Thank you for being regressive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, this story started out bizarre and misogynistic. This started as part of a Republican dominated panel contraception. Said panel was made up of all men and all the witnesses were men. When the Democrats tried to bring one female to testify, she was barred...and then Rush Limbaugh - a man who has repeatedly cheated on and then divorced his wives and who doesn't seem to have a basic understanding of how birth control works - called her a slut and then demanded to be able to watch video of her having sex.
Yes. I agree. The real story here started with the contraception panel. Limbaugh's vocalization of a misogynistic narrative is just the frosting at the top.
Posted by Shanon1331 (Member # 12786) on :
I know I'm new here, and this subject is likely getting old already, but the two sides of the debate are whether or not we should all be paying for contracptives for the masses through our taxes. Some argue that its not the taxpayers responsibility to provide a means to allow people to procreate without consequence. Some argue that its immoral to refuse to help someone who takes contraceptives for health concerns. And others argue that it is against their religious beliefs to use contraception, and therefore they should not be forced by the state to support it.
Now, the argument about providing contraceptives to women for health concerns is silly. That should be a given from any moralistic point of view and legislation could easily be attached to ensure any women with health requirements for contraception are covered. If republicans and even most democrats now were interested in anything but keeping us arguing while corporations take control of our lives, that would have already been established.
But the moralistic issues..... again, where is the reasoning here? The intellegent thought before knee jerk decisions based on superstition and bull headed flat-earth thinking?
The world is overpopulated. We are literally losing multiple species each day due to overtaxing pruduction of food and housing as well as fuel and clothing and plastics, etc.... We were charged with being good caretakers of the Earth, and should have the intellegence to understand that there is a reason behind this. It is going to effect every tax payer more and more in the future if we dont take some responsibility for how many more people we put on the Earth, and laws are going to be forced down our throat whether we like it or not, violating our faiths or not.
Rush Limbaugh is helping keep us divided in petty arguments while those at the top take more and more control over our lives both nationally and globally. And once they have enough control, they will enact laws, buth brutal and immoral, and those who disagree will have no possibility of challenging it.
Im sorry if this post is too long, but these are things no one should have to explain to an intellegent and informed person to begin with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Limbaugh has long been confused about how pills of all kinds work. Dosage, when to stop taking them, etc.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
Option #1 makes little sense to me, if you have insurance coverage that covers other prescriptions, why should it not cover this one? Leaving aside those of us with endometriosis, PCOS, and the various other medical conditions that require "contraceptive" pills for reasons other than contraception.
#2 is fine, if that's how you get all your medical care. Otherwise, back to my answer for #1.
[ March 04, 2012, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noted how he doesn't even seem to know how the pill works?
Limbaugh has long been confused about how pills of all kinds work. Dosage, when to stop taking them, etc.
I remember reading those leaked emails between him and his housekeeper, 7 or 8 years ago. And I remember thinking: you know, his followers aren't going to care that he's a hypocritical, lying drug addict, and a criminal. And you know, they didn't!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So besides "Why I am no longer right wing" being from 2009, I would imagine the answer is that some guys got right winger than me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
[ March 07, 2012, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, you know, pay for contraception yourself (that's what I do). Or get it at a free clinic. Or wait until your not ovulating.
Option #1 makes little sense to me, if you have insurance coverage that covers other prescriptions, why should it not cover this one? Leaving aside those of us with endometriosis, PCOS, and the various other medical conditions that require "contraceptive" pills for reasons other than contraception.
#2 is fine, if that's how you get all your medical care. Otherwise, back to my answer for #1.
I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception. I feel that a lot of the rhetoric around the issue has significantly overstated the impact the amendment would have had on women's (and men's!) ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
<edit>I hasten to add that of all the overblown rhetoric around the issue, Limbaugh's was far and away the worst. I don't mean to excuse Limbaugh's absurd assertions by pointing out the significantly less absurd (but still somewhat ridiculous) rhetoric on the other side of the issue.</edit>
[ March 07, 2012, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception.
I'm still not hearing why it should be ok for an insurer (or employer) to treat coverage for it any differently than other prescriptions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because it's a heinous violation of religious freedom for employees to insist employers who administer their health care plans not to be making medical decisions for them, but not a violation of personal freedoms for an employer to intervene in the medical decisions of employees whose health care plans they administer but don't actually own?
Wait, it sounds...sketchy when I say it like that!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are Christian Scientists employers allowed to deny coverage entirely and also be exempt from paying the penalty enacted under the new health care law?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
I hear what you're saying, but I think there are two different questions. One is how strong Romney's position is in the primary and the other is what his performances might say about him as a general candidate. I think the first is evident; he's in a very strong position, and there are very few vectors in which he doesn't win the primary. To the second, I think primary performance, particularly in a multi-way primary like this one, tends to be a fairly weak predictor of general election performance. If the "Romney's weak" articles are about the first, then they're wrong. If they're about the second, then I'd say they're stating a tenuous effect more significantly more strongly than it deserves.
Comparing, for instance, to the Dem 2008 cycle, after Super Tuesday 27 states had allocated delegates (not counting Michigan and Florida); Obama had captured 50.5% of them. Romney, on the other hand, has captured (depending on how you count) 52.3-55.9% of the delegates (even more if you don't count non-binding caucuses). Of course, Obama was the non-establishment candidate, so the comparison certainly isn't perfect, but I think the media's coverage of Romney is driven more by its need for a continuing battle and, to a lesser extent, Obama's increasing electoral strength due to the improving economy, rather than being based on objective analysis of the primary results.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I agree birth control is important; I'd like my employer to offer a plan that covered it. But I disagree with Schumer (and others) that not offering an insurance plan that covers contraception is equivalent to a ban on contraception.
I'm still not hearing why it should be ok for an insurer (or employer) to treat coverage for it any differently than other prescriptions.
I don't think it's good for them not to, but I don't see why they shouldn't have that right if they choose to do so. I feel the same way about any potential prescription an employer chose not to include in provide health coverage. As a (relatively poor and prone to leading the discussion in the wrong direction) example, if the government didn't compel all employers to cover prescriptions for treating erectile dysfunction I wouldn't feel it was justified to say the government wants to keep old men from having sex.
That's what I've been talking about, but I don't know if this is exactly what you're asking, though. Is this a correct restatement of your question: "If the government has a law that says employers must provide health insurance that covers all prescriptions, why should any employer receive an exemption for the special case of birth control prescriptions?" If so, I guess I would say that, for certain employers there are strongly felt ethical implications to providing birth control. I'm not aware of any other prescription medications which elicit similar levels of demonstrated ethical distress from employers. So if there were going to be an exemption, it would make sense that it would be the prescription which elicits the greatest level of ethical discomfort from a sufficient number of employers.
But I'm not really that interested in that question, because I think the premise (that the government should mandate employers provide insurance that covers all prescriptions) is bad policy in the first place.
<edit>And really I don't even care that much about the government mandate. I think it's bad policy, but I don't think it's a sufficiently big deal to really get angry about.
I originally poked my head into the discussion to say that equating an amendment that would allow employers to provide healthcare that didn't cover birth control with a ban on birth control is ridiculous. The rest is me trying to explain a position that I don't feel very strongly about.</edit>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think the premise (that the government should mandate employers provide insurance that covers all prescriptions) is bad policy in the first place.
Actually, that's not accurate. The current situation is that the government encourages (not mandates) employers to offer insurance that meets certain criteria. It's not a premise; it is the current state of affairs. (I'm not in favor of it either, but I suspect you and I have fairly opposite notions about where we should move from there.)
There is a significant difference between an insurer not covering a specific drug (new, expensive, etc.) and not covering an entire class of them. I have no problem with the former, and huge problems with the latter. If the insurer/employer has "ethical distress", then they need to find alternate methods of distribution. They don't get to not cover a class of medications that 10-20% of the time are medically necessary.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I originally poked my head into the discussion to say that equating an amendment that would allow employers to provide healthcare that didn't cover birth control with a ban on birth control is ridiculous.
Hyperbolic, I'll grant. Given the rate at which clinics are closing due to funding cuts, I disagree with "ridiculous".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
SR, I think we can deal with that very directly: should employers be allowed to make exceptions in what will and will not be covered by their private health insurance. Ethical discomfort aside, if we allow private employers to dictate the quality of coverage, and this does eventually come down to quality, instead of upholding a minimum standard of what should be offered (the direction Obama's plan takes us), then we can essentially throw out the rule book. Ethical exceptions against psychiatric treatment, drug dtreatment, stem cell therapy, blood transfusion... The point being that anyone can take exception to most anything if there is money in it for them.
So we really shouldn't be asking whether it is right to force an employer to pay for any kind of coverage. Rather, we should ask whether it is right to give an employer any say in the content of e coverage that they will be required to offer. For my part, I believe health care coverage, either employer based or public, should be required for all citizens, and should be held to a minimum standard established by statute, in congress. Not by the du juor whims of a private company. We've subjected ourselves to that kind of system for decades, and anyone can agree the results are suboptimal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Well, I was wrong on two counts. Romney did exactly what I thought he needed to do (and didn't think he would do): win Ohio, come in second in GA, and keep TN and OK to low-mid single digits (although TN ended up high single digits).
Nevertheless, the narrative this morning is all about howRomney'sweak.
I get that it's an accepted narrative and all, but I'm honestly surprised by it. He's won 13 of the first 22 contests (nine of them by double digits) and essentially tied in another. He's taken delegates in every contest, and has about 30% more projected delegates than all his competitors combined. He's finished in the top two in 20 out of 22 states or 91%. Compare that to Santorum (59%), Paul (32%) and Gigrich (18%). All of that makes me think the underwhelmedness of the media is somewhat unjustified.
There's no mandate. The Media is driven by the idea that candidates need to capture a clear mandate from the masses. There's also an enthusiasm gap. The places where Romney is losing are places Republicans need big turnout, and he's won a bunch of big states by the barest of margins. His win in Michigan was way less than it probably should have been, and he won in Ohio by a sliver. He's just barely winning in a lot of places. It indicates a general "meh" feeling that doesn't really rouse the troops heading into General Election season.
I hear what you're saying, but I think there are two different questions. One is how strong Romney's position is in the primary and the other is what his performances might say about him as a general candidate. I think the first is evident; he's in a very strong position, and there are very few vectors in which he doesn't win the primary. To the second, I think primary performance, particularly in a multi-way primary like this one, tends to be a fairly weak predictor of general election performance. If the "Romney's weak" articles are about the first, then they're wrong. If they're about the second, then I'd say they're stating a tenuous effect more significantly more strongly than it deserves.
Comparing, for instance, to the Dem 2008 cycle, after Super Tuesday 27 states had allocated delegates (not counting Michigan and Florida); Obama had captured 50.5% of them. Romney, on the other hand, has captured (depending on how you count) 52.3-55.9% of the delegates (even more if you don't count non-binding caucuses). Of course, Obama was the non-establishment candidate, so the comparison certainly isn't perfect, but I think the media's coverage of Romney is driven more by its need for a continuing battle and, to a lesser extent, Obama's increasing electoral strength due to the improving economy, rather than being based on objective analysis of the primary results.
You're also discounting overall turnout. Obama might have squeeked by in most cases, but the overall turnout from him and Clinton skyrocketed the total vote count. Estimates this year are that turnout is even lower than it was in 2008, let alone 2010, which suggests neither Romney nor his competitors are really driving people to the polls. That's the real problem I have with all this percentage-based win crap. He could win an election where only five people voted by a 4-1 margin and the media would call it a blowout. At some point, REAL numbers actually matter, and many who are calling him a weak candidate are looking at turnout number and worrying, because primary turnout IS a pretty good predictor of how a General can go.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
A lot of the press was written when the headline was Romney 4, Santorum 3. I know because I read them back then. CNN's "Why Romney Can't Win big" is especially symptomatic of having been written while Santorum was leading in Ohio for a few hours last night. Yet it's still on the main page. It appears to have been written by a Brit who doesn't know the states very well. I could be wrong on that, but, yeah.
It's actually a better position for Romney at this point, because if he were all pumped up the press would be about how Santorum was hobbled in Virginia and Ohio, and not that Santorum could have been a contender had he been better organized.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read at least two stories talking about Santorum's failure to capitalize on better organization that seems to suggest Romney is only winning because he has money and organization rather than actual appeal.
Which is actually a pretty damning story to write about a politician, since usually money and organization is all it takes to win anyway.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [P]rimary turnout IS a pretty good predictor of how a General can go.
Is it? I don't know that there's much serious study of the question; there might be.
A quick Google search turns up this article which casts some doubt on the matter. Using the estimates from the article, we can sort elections with contested primaries on both sides by the ratio of GOP primary turnout to Dem primary turnout and label them according to which side won the popular vote in the ensuing election*:
If the hypothesis that primary turnout is predictive of general election turnout were correct, the GOP should be more likely to win contests at the top of the list, and less likely to win contests at the bottom. I don't think you can really adduce much from such a small sample, but if you have to make some sort of statement about what the data indicate I don't think it would be that primary turnout correlates strongly with turnout for the general election.
*Maybe it's not fair to throw the 2000 election to the Dems on the basis of their win the popular vote; I think it's justifiable since the turnout argument is about GotV rather than electoral strategy, but I could understand those who would choose to differ.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, fairly big monkey wrench: there are no democratic primaries, and thus there is no pre indication of dem turnout. Nothing to compare your numbers to.
And anyway, Lyr's point, I think, was not that it was necessarily statistically rational correlation between voter turnout (only one of many factors) in the primaries and the general. There are a load of predictors involved: turnout, age and sex and race of likely voters, voter enthusiasm for specific candidates, key issues, etc.
It's not just numbers of votes, is my point.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, there are Democratic primaries. I voted in one just a couple days ago...
But that SP clearly listed years when both parties nominations were contestedcontested (no incumbent).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
Is there something I'm missing or is this just one of these intuitive "truths" that don't actually hold any water when subject to scrutiny?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
Is there something I'm missing or is this just one of these intuitive "truths" that don't actually hold any water when subject to scrutiny?
I've read a couple of smart articles that deconstruct this myth, and I think the Daily Show or Colbert Report did a segment on it awhile back. It's a delightful fabrication. I will say that having business acumen is valuable, but the idea that it makes you uniquely suited to fix an economy measured in the tens of trillions of dollars that is so complex people spend their lifetimes studying it is sort of bizarre to me. I'm not even convinced Romney knows the plight of small business owners, since all he ever did was buy up small companies and hack them apart to find their sellable bits. Downsizing the US economy Romney-style certainly isn't going to bring back jobs.
The problem is that this is one of those things he's just plain never challenged on. Some of his opponents might have sniped at it a bit, but you're unlikely to hear the media or Obama go at it much.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The way I see it, running a business, even a very large business, is mostly an issue of microeconomics. Government economic policy deals entirely with macroeconomics. The two don't really have much in common.
There are probably some exceptions, large banks and stock exchanges for example involve macro-economic issues but they are exceptions. Macroeconomic concerns just aren't that relevant to most business decisions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even convinced Romney knows the plight of small business owners, since all he ever did was buy up small companies and hack them apart to find their sellable bits. Downsizing the US economy Romney-style certainly isn't going to bring back jobs.
Downsize the US economy? No.
I guess it's worth reminding you that there is a pretty large subset of Republicans/libertarians/etc. who might think that downsizing the US government Romney-style could bring back jobs.
In fact, if they actually thought he planned to do that, I think he'd probably be a lot more popular among his base.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does Romney have a style when it comes to downsizing government? News to me.
It's good you said 'Romney-style', though, because one thing needs to be clear (not that you disagree): the people he's courting now, and the voters who would likely if he were to win be most responsible for the victory don't actually want to 'downsize government'. That's much too broad a statement to apply to conservative Republicans-and even a helluva lot of self-styled libertarians I've spoken to.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No more than he has a "style" when it comes to downsizing the US Economy.
Also... not sure what you mean. Just 'cause there are still government departments Republicans/libertarians won't want to cut, or...?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
That he doesn't have a 'style' when it comes to downsizing things that aren't various American privately owned businesses, or boosting the profits of larger American privately owned businesses, was my point.
As for what I meant about small government, would you say the Republican platform of 2012 is one of small government when it comes to social issues, law enforcement powers, military spending? That was what I was getting at-it doesn't serve as an indictment of Republican stances on any of those, but it's not correct to call it 'small government' and simply leave it at that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Re: the argument that a businessman would make a good Prime Minister
Depends on the government I`d think. In Canada, you could see the argument that a businessman Prime Minister (ex: Paul Martin) would run the Crown corporations more efficiently, so things like Canada Post, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the various pension investment boards, etc. In China, the state owned enterprises are even bigger, so that argument would be even more applicable there.
With the US, there have been good arguments that the bank bailouts should basically have been downsizing the financial sector in what we're calling "Romney"-style, so I think it depends. (Not that I have any illusions that Romney would actually have done that)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh,
Okay. Lyr made a jab, that claims of Romney's business acumen as it applies to being President could only translate to an ability to downsize the US Economy. You saw that, right?
I think that his crack, while being a clever bit of anti-Romney wit, is even more baseless than the idea that his business skill might actually show itself in an ability to slash/downsize the US government and its budget. That's all I was saying. Taken in context, as a response to Lyr's witticism as opposed to an assertion of Romney's skill, does it make more sense?
As far as Republicans being for small government... well, yeah. Of course they are. That there are some exceptions (such as military spending for non-Ron Paul Republicans, or certain forms of social spending for Santorum Republicans, though even then most of their so-con comes out in policies that have little to do with budget, such as gay marriage and abortion) doesn't really diminish the fact that they're the ones pretty consistently talking about a need to scale back the size and scope of government.
They ain't perfect, and I agree that calling them small government and leaving it at that is sort of pointless and flawed. But even if we were just to run down the issues doing a simple comparison between the two parties, do you really think the Republicans wouldn't end up on the slash-government side of the equation more often than the Democrats? Aside from military spending, on what issue are Democrats more inclined to try to cut government spending/programs/etc.?
I mean, people generally criticize stuff like the Ryan plan because it's heartless and evil and cuts government so deeply that it's the equivalent to throwing old ladies off of cliffs. Not because it doesn't cut anything. Ditto for, say, Christie and the NJ budget. He was a heartless monster who destroyed schools and spat on teachers. Why would they say that if he didn't, well, cut things from the budget?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Republicans are only small government in the sense that they want it to be so broken that it doesn't work, so they keep being voted in on the lie that they'll keeping making cuts to "fix" things by letting the invisible hand of the market take over, and yet spending the country into the ground in helping businesses, paying for the military etc. It is all about a Galtian war on the poor.
And they aren't particularly small government when it comes to the power of government to police peoples private lives, or on the use of force against the country's own citizens.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thank you for that incredibly coherent and insightful analysis, Blayne. It was very objective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, you seem to be saying that the size of government is only measured by what they spend. And not counting military spending.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
Wait, is this discussion about who *claims* to be small-government, or about which party is by any amount smaller government than the other? Because that's a very different conversation.
Sign me up with those who say that social policy as enacted by government is very much a part of whether government is big or small, and not at all something that can just be excused aside.
Aside from insisting it's good that citizens be required to show papers on the suspicion of law enforcement? Aside from inserting itself into the bedroom and the prayer meeting? Aside from a foreign and military policy that has profound impacts on our lives and safety? Aside from not being 'small government' in those areas...
Yeah, sure, the GOP as it exists now could be said to be small government, perhaps.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
women and gop
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thank you for that incredibly coherent and insightful analysis, Blayne. It was very objective.
Damn straight, as by possessing an outsider view I am in the natural position to have an objective view. And the objective viewpoint is that the GOP is destroying and looting the country for political gain.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Outside != Objective.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe it does confer a certain degree of objectiveness, none of that terrible nationalism gets in the way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't by default confer objectivity, nor does your own belief confirm it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do you have any reason to believe that a informed foreigner isn't in the position to criticize your political system? That by being foreign this keeps them outside of partisan culture war mindset is not in fact useful to being more objective?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't think anyone here disagrees that outsider status *can* aide in an attempt to be objective.
I think they are questioning your personal ability to be objective. And rightly so.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a question, there is a wide spread assumption that Romney's experience running successful businesses means he will be good at managing the economy. What's the reasoning?
The kinds of things businesses do to make a profit just aren't that similar to anything the government might do to stimulate the economy. Can anyone tell me what kinds of things a successful CEO does that are relevant to the kinds of economic decisions a President needs to make?
I think being the CEO of any reasonably sized company requires a firm grasp of macroeconomic principles. They may not embrace your flavor of macroeconomic theory but that's a different debate. A successful CEO must understand - or surround him/herself with people who understand - market climate, business cycles (growth rate, peak, downturn, recession, expansion - a major part of macroeconomic theory), allocation of funds and reappropriation of capital, delegation of responsibilities, and downsizing (which is different in kind but isn't entirely dissimilar to downsizing the level of government intervention in the country's economy). The CEO (or president or any upper management position, depending on their responsibilities) is concerned with the future of the company and is privy to a broad and detailed range of information which aids in fulfilling this responsibility. It's necessary to accurately predict and forecast the current position of the company as well as it's future position, then strategize and develop effective policies to guide the business in the desired direction, and finally, to oversee the implementation of the chosen polices (though CEOs of large corporations are often less involved with the direct managerial and operational side of business). Depending on the size and type of business, the CEO is also occupied with developing and maintaining strategic partnerships, further illustrating the importance of skills in diplomacy and negotiation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that a informed foreigner isn't in the position to criticize your political system? That by being foreign this keeps them outside of partisan culture war mindset is not in fact useful to being more objective?
Why, the answer to your question that nobody asked or even suggested is 'no'. That you would ask that question is actually a pretty elegant example on why your objectivity and fair-mindedness on American politics is...questionable: you began arguing with scarecrows less than a few lines into a discussion.
And please, to hopefully avoid any tantrums, note that people are questioning whether you are objective on American politics. That is all. When remembering that, please also remember that probably none of the people questioning would call themselves objective, either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised. You can exclaim my lack of objectivity until the cows come home but they don't do anything more than to temporarily deflect the argument raised, one raised several times here previous by other posters than myself. That the GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain. Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
So I imagine you can continue to derail the topic into the matter of personality conflicts between posters and side track it into a pedantic discussion regarding objectivity or you can actually address the arguments raised if you disagree with them.
Do you disagree with the above assessment? If yes, then provide a counter argument, if not why are you being a terrible poster?
quote: I think being the CEO of any reasonably sized company requires a firm grasp of macroeconomic principles. They may not embrace your flavor of macroeconomic theory but that's a different debate. A successful CEO must understand - or surround him/herself with people who understand - market climate, business cycles (growth rate, peak, downturn, recession, expansion - a major part of macroeconomic theory), allocation of funds and reappropriation of capital, delegation of responsibilities, and downsizing (which is different in kind but isn't entirely dissimilar to downsizing the level of government intervention in the country's economy). The CEO (or president or any upper management position, depending on their responsibilities) is concerned with the future of the company and is privy to a broad and detailed range of information which aids in fulfilling this responsibility. It's necessary to accurately predict and forecast the current position of the company as well as it's future position, then strategize and develop effective policies to guide the business in the desired direction, and finally, to oversee the implementation of the chosen polices (though CEOs of large corporations are often less involved with the direct managerial and operational side of business). Depending on the size and type of business, the CEO is also occupied with developing and maintaining strategic partnerships, further illustrating the importance of skills in diplomacy and negotiation.
None of which applies to Mittens.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: None of which applies to Mittens.
?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne, you declared you were objective and then gave absurd reasons why we should just take your word for it. The one who brought the substance of your objectivity? Blayne Bradley. If you don't want to talk about it anymore-and I wouldn't be surprised-that's fine, but don't try and whine that other people are being 'terrible posters' because they discuss what you proclaimed.
Especially since, when your objectivity was derided, your support was 'I'm a foreigner, and therefore obviously objective. Now on to the objective view.' No one is saying you're wrong about your political opinions-though geeze, those discussions always end up well, just that you're not objective. That's it. Very few people are, and you ain't one of them.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: None of which applies to Mittens.
?
Aw. If that was really his nickname, how could anyone not vote for him? He should adopt it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne, you declared you were objective and then gave absurd reasons why we should just take your word for it. The one who brought the substance of your objectivity? Blayne Bradley. If you don't want to talk about it anymore-and I wouldn't be surprised-that's fine, but don't try and whine that other people are being 'terrible posters' because they discuss what you proclaimed.
Especially since, when your objectivity was derided, your support was 'I'm a foreigner, and therefore obviously objective. Now on to the objective view.' No one is saying you're wrong about your political opinions-though geeze, those discussions always end up well, just that you're not objective. That's it. Very few people are, and you ain't one of them.
You are not however debating the substance of my post, but nitpicking the method of my post, which was, a reply to Dan_Frank's obviously sarcastic content-less elaborationless reply to my criticism of the GOP.
He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Blayne, as a fellow foreigner, I can say that, whether or not your argument is valid, being foreign *in itself* usually just means you're less well informed, not that you're intrinsically more objective on the subject of another country's political situation.
You can have just as many political opinions and biases as a citizen, if not more so - you're just not entitled to vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
Oh, we all get it. The problem is, it takes more than non-residence to be objective. Being an outsider doesn't, in and of itself, confer objectivity. That you claim it does demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
But, hey, this is yet another opportunity for you to hear a wide variety of people from a variety of ideologies and backgrounds suggest that perhaps maybe you're mistaken about something, but because you can't tolerate nearly any criticism from some of them, disregard the whole concern. Totally cool and outstandingly objective. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Since Blayne is more absorbed in Chinese culture than most people here, his opinion on the matter is more biased and less valuable.
I know nothing about Chinese culture though, so my lack of bias allows me to confidently and accurately state that China is aiming for world domination by putting sedatives in Chinese food to make Americans lazy and apathetic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:He implied that my post wasn't objective, so I reply that by being non-American I am inherently more objective than he is being, do you get it now?
Oh, we all get it. The problem is, it takes more than non-residence to be objective. Being an outsider doesn't, in and of itself, confer objectivity. That you claim it does demonstrates your misunderstanding of the word.
But, hey, this is yet another opportunity for you to hear a wide variety of people from a variety of ideologies and backgrounds suggest that perhaps maybe you're mistaken about something, but because you can't tolerate nearly any criticism from some of them, disregard the whole concern. Totally cool and outstandingly objective.
By being foreign, I am in a better position to look at both sides of the issue then someone who has bought into the local cultural baggage and can only see the world in those terms. Much like who Randians is essential a purely American phenomenon as it easily adapts itself to the ideals American Exceptionalism that have knee capped egalitarianism for years now.
The only real counter argument to this would be arguing that I am less informed to the extant that it negates any advantages gained from being less biased; however it should be very cleared that I am informed and take ample steps to be more informed.
Again I ask, do you believe that Dan is correct that I am not being "objective"? Do you believe that this "lack" of objectivity undermines my post? Have I made any mistakes that could be attributed to being less informed than the median? How has my post been undermined?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised. You can exclaim my lack of objectivity until the cows come home but they don't do anything more than to temporarily deflect the argument raised, one raised several times here previous by other posters than myself. That the GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain. Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
Jesus H. Christ. What universe do we live in where you can foist some lame-assed claim upon us that you're "objective," and therefore an authority, and then dismiss as pedantic any reply that suggests you aren't, and yet further, ridicule others for BRINGING UP OBJECTIVITY.
And then you GO BACK TO CLAIMING TO BE OBJECTIVE. Goddamn.
Honestly, you're messing with us, right? You're not this stupid.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And at the same time remember that criticizing whether one can be objective doesn't eliminate the validity of the points raised.
The point you raised, which was then criticized, was that your opinion of American politics is objective simply due to the fact that you are not American. The counterargument being made is that, merely by virtue of your nationality, you are not so greatly removed from the American political landscape that you become an "outsider" with an objective view.
Claim 1 - The GOP is abusing its position to damage the US for political gain.
is different than
Claim 2 - I (Blayne) am objective because of my outsider status.
You are being called out on the second claim.
quote:Targeting whether I am being "objective" about it is just being pedantic.
It was you that made the claim of being objective. Does it surprise you that the claim was rejected?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok. If I have a pair of binoculars and am viewing, say, a bird in a tree from 50m away, am I guaranteed to observe more, and more accurately, about that bird than, say, my ornithological companion who is viewing the same bird with binoculars just as powerful from 100m away?
Of course not. We need more information. Perhaps he's a better or ornithologist than I am, or there's an unfortunate glare of sun that doesn't get in his way, or maybe that bird was the same species as a beloved family pet that just died and I'm really broken up about it, or there's just some branches in my way but not his.
My being closer doesn't of itself make my observations more valid. It gives me a chance of being more objective. That's it. All that remains is whether you have the ability to admit to what is so obvious and harmless, or if because you don't like the people telling you it suddenly doesn't count.
I'm not from Canada, and have spent perhaps...4 hours?...within her borders in my life. Therefore, my political opinions on Canadian politics are more objective than yours. Right?
Yes or no question. If your answer is 'no', well, if you think people are dismissive and patronizing now...
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Guys, please stop this, it's going nowhere. And Blayne, this is not the first time people are trying to help you and you react by insulting them. Continue like this and people will start to think of you as a troll not worth answering to.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*Whoosh* afaik is generally a fairly internet neutral way to react to someone missing your point and I'ld argue that Orincoro's post was much more insulting but I'll delete the post.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Blayne, as a fellow foreigner, I can say that, whether or not your argument is valid, being foreign *in itself* usually just means you're less well informed, not that you're intrinsically more objective on the subject of another country's political situation.
You can have just as many political opinions and biases as a citizen, if not more so - you're just not entitled to vote.
This is what I would say to Blayne all neatly written out by another poster.
----
Blayne: Do I get to pretend I've got the best of both worlds and everybody should listen to me because I study American history and political science but I was raised outside the United States so I avoided all those biases you're talking about? No. It just means I had a different set of biases that may or may not make me a good critic of the system. I'm certainly not going to try to argue my bias set is better/worse than another's. You can only argue your ideas and whether they stand up. Stay away from the "My ideas are better by their nature" stuff.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Blayne, thanks for deleting it. And that wasn't the insulting part. Also, I agree that Orincoro's post isn't the model to which we all aspire any more than yours was, but it's all starting from people being exasperated by your lines of reasoning. That of course doesn't give them an excuse to post any insults.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Obama Still Muslim, Report Southern Republicans
quote: The poll also finds that two-thirds of the Republicans in both states do not believe in evolution. Two-thirds of Alabama Republicans also believe interracial marriage ought to be legal, compared with 54% of Mississippi Republicans. Progress!
We really should have let them secede.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Let them? Please, they wouldn't leave if we shoehorned them out the door. MS and AL are two of the biggest collectors of water from the federal well. They get back far more than they contribute, and I doubt they'd want to give that up. They'd have to massively increase spending on roads and education to cover the deficit, and the people likely wouldn't take kindly to dramatic tax increases, though the irony would be a little satisfying.
ETA: Missed the "should have let them" part last time. Regardless, there's plenty of talk in southern states of secession even today. And it's all ridiculous.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
At the risk of being the guy who finds an edible apple in the rotten pile, I still think it's somewhat heartening that so many think he is a Muslim, and they aren't seriously pushing the succession agenda.
edit: It's like having all the progressive bragging rights of electing a Muslim president, without actually doing it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If they were kicked from the Union then it wouldn't be possible to use the Federal Elections Commission to keep them from disenfranchising blacks and other minorities outrightly, right now we just have to deal with gerrymandering and cynically transparent voter suppression.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'we'?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'we'?
Didn't you know? Blayne moved in with me and Mrs. BB this morning. The naturalization process starts today!
I think we will be a better country with Blayne's contributions, assuming we can keep him from committing treason against us with China.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmm. Well I suppose for Hatrack's sake, that is easier-are you now the B^6s then?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You forgot Baby BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As Rivka said, B^8 actually. With room for growth still.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We as in the progressive left. Voter suppression is a blight on us all as internationalists.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: As Rivka said, B^8 actually. With room for growth still.
*Assumes invitation is in the post*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If I have to go into scientific notation to keep track of you people, I'ma be pissed!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're already using exponents. Which aspect of scientific notation were you planning to add in addition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...err, I'm still in the vetting stages of the decision, obviously!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:A few weeks ago, a video circulated online of Rick Santorum claiming that 1 in 20 deaths in the Netherlands are caused by involuntary euthanasia. According to Santorum, elderly Dutch wear bracelets that say "do not euthanize me" and "don't go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they're afraid because of budget purposes that they will not come out of that hospital if they go into it with sickness."
It's a matter of what's in his heart. He's a strong pro-life person," press secretary Alice Stewart replies.
After all, like the origin of the universe or the existence of a supreme being, Dutch medical statistics are ultimately unknowable -- just another of the unresolvable mysteries that have confronted us since the dawn of mankind. Who are we? Why are we here? What are the laws in the Netherlands concerning doctor-assisted suicide? We all have our own beliefs.
Santorum knows in his heart that elderly Dutch people are routinely euthanized against their will by doctors. He believes this to be true, no matter what the elite media tries to tell him.
It's the same way I know that one in four Laotians are born with an extra finger and that the most common name in Chad is Chad. It's just what I believe.
This is, essentially, Death Panels Mk. II — not content to have mythologized our own medical reforms to terrify voters with obvious falsehoods, Santorum belongs to the epidemic conservative mythologizers and liars who try to keep us terrified of the success of universal healthcare in europe.
Some admit that universal healthcare is working in europe way better than our system is working for us, despite how flush with cash our country is and how readily we could afford the change. Their usual strategy is to hit us with the falsehoods and canards about how what works for europe doesn't work for us, because .. our country is too large! or it's not homogenous enough! there's too many minorities, or something! It just wouldn't work! — Santorum ups the ante by claiming blatantly ridiculous falsehoods about medical systems to try to prop up the narrative that our medical system keeps people safe where social medicine would abandon them to death, despite the opposite being disgustingly clear.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, to Santorum the Netherlands is less of a place and more of a state of mind. You know, because Rotterdam is anywhere alone and the whole place is pickled, the people are pickles for sure. And there are probably Dutch unicorns and zombies running around shooting rainbows out of their... oh never mind.
Seriously, if he was going to make stuff up he could have gone for something a lot more interesting.
(I mean, how many people who support Santorum are ever going to visit the Netherlands? They'll never find out, so he's pretty safe.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It's a matter of what's in his heart. He's a strong pro-life person.
Truthiness: Because eight years of it just wasn't enough.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Bush was gaffe prone, BB, but the crazy sh*t Santorum says puts Bush to shame.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
GO RON PAUL GO!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh.
Thoughts on Paul himself aside, I'm not sure that I'm particularly mad at him for violating the spirit of a system that I didn't like in the first place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Bush was gaffe prone, BB, but the crazy sh*t Santorum says puts Bush to shame.
Bush's gaffes were usually simple misspeakings. He's fumble his words, or make non-sensical gibberish statements.
This is an entirely different level of gaffe. It's outright lying. It's intentional misrepresentation. It's the problem Romney tends to run into: he gets in trouble when he says what he really thinks. This is beyond a gaffe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's really just "The Onion Said It Better #23211"
I'm also going to indulge a little. Here's Mitt Romney talking about Olive Garden.
quote:Let me tell you, this place is great. Is this where you folks normally eat? Only when you're broke, that's right. Heh.
Ann and I sat in a booth near the kitchen. There was a fireplace, a real old-fashioned hearth, in the corner, and a nice vase on the ledge. I love décor; napkins are great. The ice water was just the right temperature.
At length, I asked my server what she would recommend. She suggested chicken alfredo, and I was feeling a little rebellious so I ordered the chicken alfredo pizza. I love chicken—I love grilled chicken, I love broiled chicken, I love chicken scampi! Poultry is great. I told Ann, I said, "Did you know chickens came from dinosaurs?" And Ann just kind of shrugged. I said, "I'm being serious, Ann, not just a few of them, but olive them." Aha. Alright, okay.
The pizza comes with Italian cheeses, alfredo sauce, and scallions. I told our server—Maria, I think her name was—I said, "Margaret, hold the Italian cheeses, alfredo sauce, and scallions." Then I took my fork and removed the chicken from the pizza and discarded it, and then I cut the flatbread into manageable portions, and I trimmed the edges off the crust, and consumed them. Forks are my favorite utensil. I also like butter knives.
I've got to tell you, Ann and I went to a place in Tuscany last fall that was just like this. Well I shouldn't say it was exactly like this. That one was was on a veranda overlooking the Mediterranean and bordered on two sides by an actual olive garden. The servers were dressed in authentic Renaissance attire, and the food was prepared fresh by a 13th-generation Italian chef whose great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather sold olive oil to Michelangelo's grandson until they had a falling-out. I don't quite remember the full story; something about a goat. They had a fireplace too but this one was real, not electric, and burned only lumber that had been salvaged from Phoenician wrecks. The wood gave off a faint scent of mahogany mixed with sturgeon; I love logs. You should have seen the bill—we almost went baroque! Aha, okay, ahem.
I told Ann, I said, I don't usually eat fast food, but this is pretty good. Ann didn't think I should say that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh. Gosh.
Why does this primary season feel like a race to teh crazy train? It's embarrassing. Candidates willing to be reasonable get weeded out, and we're left with Wowbagger the Infinitely wealthy (who will say anything to win, even if it contradicts what he said to win a different election) and Tiny Mouth Crazypants, who... I can't even say it. I feel the physical sensation of embarrassment every time he speaks.
(And, well, Ron Paul, whose 'smaller government' would still be big enough to be in every woman's uterus, which, as a uterus-haver (even one with no particular liking of abortion), makes me uneasy.)
I miss John Huntsman. At least he was willing to go on record saying that science is a thing.
I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
Well, for various reasons, like
1. WWII brought everyone in the country together, including politicians, who nearly all served
2. politicians now have to spend far more time raising money, and spend much less time in D.C., so they can't get to know their fellow congress members socially
3. radical Islam just isn't as frightening an enemy as the former Soviet Union, which reduces the cohesive effect of 'us versus them' that we had during the Cold War and WWII
the individual politicians in DC (of opposite parties) really just don't socialize anymore. In some cases, they're barely on speaking terms.
It's kind of like what happens when a large social group starts to unravel (say, after high school or college graduation, or when an elderly family matriarch finally dies). The calm, stable members of the group are more likely to remain calm and stable. The crazier, less stable ones might possibly get crazier, without the calming influence of the stable ones.
In this country, it's always been the economic conservatives that were the extremists. In Soviet Russia, it was the opposite. There, the paranoid rabid extremists were all pro-Communism to the nth degree. Here, it's the Randians and the Rush Limbaughs who are frighteningly extreme and paranoid.
I think that reasons #1 and #3 also apply to American society at large, with the expected effects on the parties. Democrats elect centrists, and it's centrists that usually win primaries. Republicans have gotten so goshdarn extreme, in many cases, that only extremists can win the primaries, more and more.
If it weren't for the excess power that rural states still wield in Presidential elections (via the electoral college), we'd be electing a lot more Democratic Presidents, and their margins of victory would be larger, I think.
You're right, the Republicans are being taken over by the extremists, more so every election cycle.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Romney continues to win in places where people actually have to deal with other people on a daily basis.
The democrats, despite not having a race, are still dealing with circling the wagons. I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist, but it does seem like the people insisting on it are being impatient to their own disadvantage. It would be easier for Obama to win without it, and they are certain to get better results if Obama is re-elected rather than whoever the Republicans nominate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist...
Whether it's PC or not, it's not sensible or accurate.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
On the Colbert Report last night, Mark McKinnon (a former insider in GWB's and McCain's campaigns) posited that Mitt won't be able to get the nomination with just his own delegates, and since Ron Paul's won't be enough to tip the balance even if they all go for Romney, that if Newt and Santorum throw in together, Santorum could win the nomination.
Colbert smiled and said, "That's f...un!"
I would almost like to see Santorum running for President for the comic potential, but it's more than a little scary.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist...
Whether it's PC or not, it's not sensible or accurate.
QFT. Who exactly cares?
I've said this a zillion times, so forgive me, but the notion of "PC" before it got co-opted to mean: "being overly sensitive and ridiculous," meant literally: "correct." That is, saying something in such a way as to be as accurate and non-unintentionally insulting as possible. It is done to avoid misunderstanding.
Like you say: "Black American," because calling someone an "Negro" recalls the * inaccuracy* of sociological theories about black people, and the previous usages of the word which were mostly derogatory. And then when people point to things like: United Negro College Fund, and say: "bububub what about that?" they forget that it retains the name for the purpose of *being expressive*- not being accurate.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer:
3. radical Islam just isn't as frightening an enemy as the former Soviet Union, which reduces the cohesive effect of 'us versus them' that we had during the Cold War and WWII
You've made me imagine a scary world where that cohesive effect was potentially stronger.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't have to imagine. Just think back 10 years.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh yea, I must have tried to block that out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
k.k...k...k...k....k...ker...KERMIT THE FROG YEEEEEESSSSS~!!!! On Colbert!!! Yes!!!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I loved him standing up for Amphibian American rights like 'Oh right, just because I'm a frog, I should know all about Newt?'
Adorable.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I miss John Huntsman. At least he was willing to go on record saying that science is a thing.
Me too. I miss him as governor too. Utah had a few good years of very sensible leadership, and now we're overcompensating by making it illegal for bartenders to pour or open drinks where minors can see them and by requiring abstinence-only sex ed. Yay regressivism.
quote:I used to be a conservative. I believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility. I maintain it's the party that moved, not me.
At first I thought it was just the party that moved, but that shift caused me to reexamine a lot of my political views, and I've found that I've moved to the left. I think I'm still pretty moderate, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I don't know if it's PC to call the gay marriage plank in the platform extremist...
Whether it's PC or not, it's not sensible or accurate.
It's no so much the content of the demand, put holding the platform hostage to the demand. Like what happened with immigration reform for Republicans in 2008.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Texas gets some center-stage time kicking the whole "war on women" thing into high gear.
Ugh, these women. Who the hell do they think they are, anyway? Wanting us to pay attention to their 'issues' and having some crazy-they're so emotional-frustration at government intrusion into their deeply personal lives when it's quite clear that government isn't doing it for them, but in this case to them. Acting all outraged like they're some sort of big chunk of the population that is very poorly represented in our government.
Can't they all just go shopping and then catch some Sex in the City? Haven't we men suffered enough in protecting these women from themselves?
-----
If these laws were truly about ensuring women were informed about pregnancy-and, in fact, their husbands or the father if he is listed-informed about pregnancy and birth in a comprehensive way, I'm not sure I'd mind some targeted, grim information being included, as well as a waiting period outside of medical emergency or various disqualifiers, such as having seen multiple doctors already.
I'm not sure I'd mind because after all, I'm deeply uncertain about when and how the pregnancy becomes a human life, and I think there's a chance it happens earlier than we think and we have a duty as humans-even if we don't acknowledge it-to take that very seriously, and avoid it if we can. But if the information is clearly targeted to simply prevent abortions by a cadre of almost entirely men? Who tell us like we're stupid it's about information only?
Yeah, to hell with that.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Waiting period issue- there are a limited number of places that do abortions. If you have a waiting period and the woman has to drive 3 or 4 hours or in some cases even more than that, the waiting period is more than just an inconvenience. And the assumption that women are just too stupid to have thought out these decisions is ridiculous.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: And the assumption that women are just too stupid to have thought out these decisions is ridiculous.
Before or after she had sex and got pregnant?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:she had sex and got pregnant
Because reproductive sex is something that women do alone and after that women should have no control over what happens to them because they are mentally about the level of a sheep. Keep your knees together, even under duress, or be punished. And yes, for some people a baby is punishment. Life is not what we want it to be, reality is not a Saturday afternoon made-for-TV movie. When, as someone I knew discovered, your beloved baby has almost no skull and half a brain, it's torture.
Arguments like this just make me cross. It's not that simple. It's not that reductive. And what's going on in America at the moment, and increasingly (supported by American money) Europe is just weird.
(I might just be over reacting because I'm an overly emotional woman. Hell, this week a guy asked me the same question three times in two hours because 'women don't know what they want, or what they think'. He got the same answer the first two times, and a total bollocking the third time for being an idiotic so-and-so. Emotional, see.)
[ March 17, 2012, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ugh. Please don't be so successful at making men look bad, capax.
-----
Did that alone, did she? Or is pregnancy and childbirth to be deemed a punishment? Or is it rather that once a woman has sex, she cannot possibly later consider the question of abortion in a thoroughly informed way on her own? So many vaguely or even outright hostile to females options to choose from!
(Wait a second...isn't this government in medical decisions?! I thought that was the sure and irrevocable to socialism and death panels?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Small Government must never be so small as to not be able to occupy the uterus, evidently.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oddly, I suspect one could go to Canada, land of socialist medicine and big government, and simply pay for an abortion with less nanny state nagging and superior service with no mandatory wait time. That amuses me in an awfully dark way.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Small Government must never be so small as to not be able to occupy the uterus, evidently.
While I'm actually quite conservative on the subject of abortion, this is hilarious!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Twenty minutes later and 20 miles to the north, Rick Santorum took the stage before an equally large crowd. But Santorum was at John Hersey High School in Arlington Heights -- an odd choice of venue, given that almost no one in the audience was eligible to vote. Sounding more like a social studies teacher than a presidential candidate, Santorum spent 15 minutes extolling the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and explaining why the two documents made America an exceptional country.
Adding to the peculiarity of the event, Santorum was interrupted mid-speech by an educator, presumably the principal, who declared that time was tight and there were a number of students with questions. It was clear from Santorum’s expression that he hadn’t been briefed about this part of the program, but he willingly obliged.
Maybe he shouldn’t have.
The first student asked why Santorum said he didn’t want people to go to college and how that compared to President Obama’s plan for full and affordable access to college. The second, clearly prepped by a Democrat (even if it was one of his own parents), asked why Santorum gave less than 2 percent of his nearly $1 million income last year to charity, and how a middle-class family could be expected to care for a severely disabled child like the Santorums do without going bankrupt -- unless we had the kind of universal health care that Obama signed into law.
The last student questioned Santorum on how his economic plan would help create jobs given that is was more or less an extension of George W. Bush’s plan to keep taxes low for the richest “one percent” of the country.
Chicago resident David Axelrod could not have written four more dutifully partisan questions. And Santorum suffered through them all before the principal put an end to the session and the former Pennsylvania senator waved goodbye and scooted out the side door.
When all was said and done, he had wasted more than an hour of his time (not to mention the effort his staff invested in advance work) at an event that in all likelihood moved him not a single vote closer to victory on Tuesday.
Hilarious.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This seems to happen a lot whenever GOP candidates try to address students, either at the high school or college level.
I don't really like the bias in the article though. First, they assume that high schoolers aren't smart enough or engaged enough to be able to ask those questions without coaching. Perhaps most aren't, but those are the ones unlikely to go to and volunteer to ask a question of a candidate. It's self-selection, which makes them more likely to be informed enough to ask such questions.
Second, I don't like the disdain that the author treats a presidential candidate addressing high schoolers. Sure most of them won't be able to vote in this election, but they will be in the next election. They all want jobs and education in the next four years, but are they to be ignored in the process? And if we engage our students, doesn't it make sense that THEY will become more engaged themselves? Certainly they won't be if we pretend they don't exist until they become 30.
So kudos for Santorum for engaging students...but don't be surprised when students are more liberal. Youth in general are morel liberal, but that doesn't mean you ignore them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The kids in my family all understand exactly what is at stake when your insurance can just drop you when you need it most. One of my sisters had to suffer for about a year until they figured out she was experiencing renal failure, and needed a kidney transplant. All told, the cost of the dialysis to keep her alive, (and she almost died, and had to go to the ICU twice) and the surgery was north of $100K.
You could have easily asked any of my siblings at any age when that was going on why Americans need these protections, and it would have been obvious. How much more so if my sister had come out of the ICU permanently brain damaged, and in need of therapy on top of the transplant?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't have known that as a kid, but I would have been able to respond to some of the welfare state crap they've been spewing. We had to live off unemployment insurance and food stamps for awhile as a kid when my mom lost her job. Similarly, my brother and I knew all about college costs because we grew up knowing mom and dad couldn't afford a dollar to help us out.
I think there's too much media attention on the upper middle class, who I guess are insulated from a lot of this, and not enough on the lower middle class and the working poor, who know political issues all too well because we've lived a lot of them. I consider myself luckier than most, but my childhood wasn't perfect, and adversity teaches political awareness.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You could have easily asked any of my siblings at any age when that was going on why Americans need these protections, and it would have been obvious. How much more so if my sister had come out of the ICU permanently brain damaged, and in need of therapy on top of the transplant?
B-b-but death panels!!! Like in the Netherlands!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wouldn't have known that as a kid, but I would have been able to respond to some of the welfare state crap they've been spewing. We had to live off unemployment insurance and food stamps for awhile as a kid when my mom lost her job. Similarly, my brother and I knew all about college costs because we grew up knowing mom and dad couldn't afford a dollar to help us out.
I think there's too much media attention on the upper middle class, who I guess are insulated from a lot of this, and not enough on the lower middle class and the working poor, who know political issues all too well because we've lived a lot of them. I consider myself luckier than most, but my childhood wasn't perfect, and adversity teaches political awareness.
I'm solidly upper-middle class. I suppose I came by my feelings about these subjects by going to school with so many, *so* many, kids who were beaten down by life, by their parents, and by the system. I was rich for my area, from easily the wealthiest family in a small school district, and I saw, very very clearly, that I had opportunities and for-granteds that the others did not. Of the 30 or so of us who were in school together from 1st to 8th grade, I think 4 finished at university. It was the three wealthiest kids, and a good friend of ours, who payed her own way.
And I went to public university. It barely cost anything in comparison with what it could have. Many of these other people could have gone. But they didn't, and not because some of them weren't smart enough. But because every day growing up, I felt safe and secure and I was told I had a future, by parents who could envision it before I could. I came home every night to a big safe house with parents who weren't stressed by dangerous jobs, I ate healthy expensive foods, and had healthful, expensive hobbies and vacations. When I needed a computer to write, I got one (before that was strictly expected). I had Internet access years before it was common. I had everything I could use to be the best that I could be.
I think you'd have to be delusional to have actually *known* people, and grown up around them, and seen that your lot in life was better, and *still* insist you've had the same opportunities, or that your advantages were as nothing. That's horseshit. I don't think I would be 10 times the man I am if I had Trump money, but I damn well wouldn't be where I am if I didn't have what I did. I know people who strive *because* they come from adversity. Great. But that's exceptional. Should be plan on people being exceptional, when most f us are not? Without my advantages, I wouldn't have succeeded the way I have. And for a lot of people, that's true.
[ March 19, 2012, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Part of the trick is not to grow up around them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Clearly. I suppose implicit in what I'm saying is that having been quite inordinately lucky in life, I am aware that a) I have been lucky, and b) others have not been.
The double think of the modern conservative movement that baffles me is that they seem to acknowledge this is true, and yet not grasp the deep relevance of this phenomenon. As if because it is not a true binary, it doesn't rate. As if, we're one to acknowledge that luck is a mistress of success, one must abandon any claim of responsibility for one's successes, and vice versa, if luck is a mistress of failure.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Part of the trick is not to grow up around them.
Almost everyone knows some people who are less fortunate than they are and some people who are more fortunate than they are so clearly just knowing people who are less fortunate isn't enough.
I know people who grew up poor and succeeded against the odds who have enormous compassion for the underprivileged and others who figure if they did it, the poor have no excuse. I know people who grew up in the top 5% and are convinced they are self made men who deserve even more than they have and others who recognize that they've been extraordinarily lucky. The difference is due to more than just exposure.
I don't know exactly what causes the difference but I think an awful lot of it relates the the values we are taught as a child. Success almost always requires a mix of good luck and personal merit but we differ in how we see the balance. There are big differences in what people see as luck and what they perceive as merit. For example, if you've got natural talents (high intelligence, athletic ability, musical ability etc), are you more deserving than others or luckier?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I probably did know people less fortunate but certainly wasn't aware of them. I grew up in an afluent suburb that was really beyond our means so almost everyone I knew was considerably better off than we were. I didn't really have much contact with people in actual need till I got a job in the city working as a school librarian for an inner city school. That was a real awakening.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Depends on what you do with those advantages, IMO. Luck is what you start with, maybe, but it certainly doesn't determine your success. You do that yourself based on how you use what you've been given. It also depends on how you define success.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I probably did know people less fortunate but certainly wasn't aware of them. I grew up in an affluent suburb that was really beyond our means so almost everyone I knew was considerably better off than we were. I didn't really have much contact with people in actual need till I got a job in the city working as a school librarian for an inner city school. That was a real awakening.
By "considerably better off" are you thinking strictly in terms of money or are you also considering things like natural ability, involved parents, your family's cultural values, and social capital?
It's pretty unusual for anyone to be worse off than their neighbors in all of those respects. When a family chooses to live in a neighborhood that is beyond their means, it says something about what the parents value. I have no idea why your family made that choice but very commonly parents choose to live in a neighborhood that's more expensive than they can readily afford so their kids can attend a better school and live in a safer area. Sometimes families do it because they (or their family) owned the property before the neighborhood went upscale or because they were more affluent when they bought the house than they are now. Those things are all advantages that not everyone gets.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Depends on what you do with those advantages, IMO. Luck is what you start with, maybe, but it certainly doesn't determine your success. You do that yourself based on how you use what you've been given. It also depends on how you define success.
Yes and no. Luck and effort both contribute to success but luck isn't just a matter of what you start with, there is luck in every decision people make. You don't have to look very far to find people who've worked hard and made reasonably sound choices and yet are failing financially due to factors beyond their control. Maybe the company they worked for went bankrupt so they lost both their job and their pension. Perhaps they had a major illness or a child with serious disabilities that interfered with their career. I know a lot of people who bought houses 7 or 8 years ago that are now worth a fraction of what they owe. They didn't get ridiculous sub-prime loans or buy a house that was beyond their means but if they had to sell their houses today because of a job change or a divorce, they'd go bankrupt. I know a couple of people who are in that exact situation.
You also don't have to look too far to find people on the other side, who are unusually successful because of a series of unusually good luck. I have a friend who took a job with a start up company right out of high school that offered him stock options. The salary was really low but he took the job because he didn't have any other offers because there was a recession at the time. If he'd graduate a couple years earlier or later, he would have had several better offers and he never would have taken the job. That company is now Micron and he is a multi-millionaire. You can say he's rich because he made a good choice but I way, he got lucky. For every person like him there are hundreds who own worthless stock options in companies that never went public. The only thing that really distinguishes him from them is luck.
I think its possible for people to fail solely because of bad luck. You can work really hard and make reasonable responsible choices and still fail utterly because of bad luck.
On the other hand, I don't think its possible to be highly successful without having unusually good luck. You can be moderately successful if you work very hard, you make consistently reasonable, responsible choices, and you have average luck. But to be highly successful, you also have to have unusually good luck.
[ March 19, 2012, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Maybe the company they worked for went bankrupt so they lost both their job and their pension.
It's interesting to me how different people can define "luck" different ways, and some people can attribute the same factors to "decisions."
For example, if you're at a company that went bankrupt, and you financially suffer because of this, there are lots of ways you can argue this likely has little to do with luck.
(Using a general "you" here, "you" being the guy who got lucky or not.)
For example: Why did the company go bankrupt? If it was a failing company, then perhaps you weren't working as hard as you thought. "Hard" work is sort of a sticky concept anyway; hard work isn't inherently valuable. Hard work towards a valuable goal is. If you worked really hard but your company made a product no one wanted, it makes sense you went bankrupt, and that's not luck. That's you making poor predictions about what will be a valuable product.
Perhaps you don't have that much control over the company's decisions, though. You're just a grunt, not someone setting the policy, so you worked hard at the job the company said was valuable and then it turned out it wasn't. Bad luck, not your fault, right?
But why were you only a grunt, and unable to effect policy? Because you chose not to pursue a higher role in the company? Now we've back to a decision you made, not bad luck at all. But maybe it was a repressively bureaucratic company with byzantine hiring standards (or maybe your immediate manager was racist) and you weren't able to advance through no fault of your own. Bad luck!
But why did you stay at a company where you couldn't advance and couldn't have any say in the policies of the company? Why not find a new job, or start your own company?
Certainly some things really are luck based, but I think the line between "luck" and "choice" may be more blurry than you think.
[ March 19, 2012, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Depends on what you do with those advantages, IMO. Luck is what you start with, maybe, but it certainly doesn't determine your success. You do that yourself based on how you use what you've been given. It also depends on how you define success.
Just kicking the can down the road a piece, really. You can say this, and it's true, but that doesn't make it what you might want it to be.
If you just look at statistics, then, no, you're entirely wrong, luck of the draw has *everything* to do with your chances of success. Statistically. Of course, we are not statistics, and treating people as if they are is problematic. But you're just begging the question: how does one make the best of what one has? Is not the influence in one's life saying: "make the best of this," a part of that luck and circumstance?
I just wish we could embrace the ambiguous view here. It is not all luck. It is not all individual. Humans don't fall into static metrics- that's why IQ is meaningless, and every other measure of "potential" has everything to do with what *has* happened to a person, and nothing to do with what a person *might* do. But we need to be responsive to this flaw in our wordview. We need to understand that, implicit in our awareness that we can measure potential according to what *we expect*, we can, and we can *only* find ways of helping people to achieve the type of success that we find valuable to *us*.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeah, there are definitely circumstances beyond your control at just about every turn. I'd say most everything that goes on is beyond your control as an individual or family. You might end up fairly frequently at a point where you have to assess what you have and what you're able to do based on circumstances. How you define success from there defines what luck is.
I agree with Dan to a point. You make choices that make certain circumstances possible and make you vulnerable in certain ways—like choosing a particular career or buying a home. That determines to some extent what can happen to you. You're also aiming toward certain goals. Some things that others would deem success or failures won't be to you, and vice versa.
But depending on your present situation and how many choices are available to you, you're pretty much in charge of determining what success is and how you'll use what you have to get there.
ETA: Orincoro, I'll have to think about that a little more, but I generally agree. The way we define success is based on the circumstances we've been given, at least at first. Our perspective of the world. It might take a big shakeup in our worldview, like Kate was talking about, to get us to redefine what we're aiming for.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Certainly some things really are luck based, but I think the line between "luck" and "choice" may be more blurry than you think.
No, my point was that the line between good choices and luck is too blurry to justify any confidence that you succeeded because of the inherent merit rather than luck. You have have an irrational faith that the market will reward quality work which is simply not justifiable from the data.
Businesses, like individuals, fail all the time as the result of factors that have nothing to do with the business itself. Making a successful business plan involves predicting the future and that is something no one can do accurately. Some luck is always involved.
It isn't possible for everyone to be a decision maker in a major corporation. Some people will always have to work in positions where they have little input into the decisions that influence their life. That's a fact of life.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Many, many people would rather have a job with clearly defined expectations and success criteria, where they don't have to make major decisions about the company. Presumably because they like the feeling of stability that brings, or for some other reasons.
So yes, some (many!) people will work in such positions. That is, currently, a fact.
Do they have to? Well, no. They could do something else. They are choosing to work there because they like it compared to the alternatives that they can imagine.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Also: I'm pretty sure I didn't indicate anywhere that I have some sort of blind faith that the market will reward "quality work," especially since I explicitly stated that terms like that (I used "hard" work) are so misleading.
I do think that a market will generally reward work that said market considers valuable, which is very different.
And yeah, of course there is a predictive quality to determining what's valuable, and it's hard to predict that with accuracy. But some companies do this with some consistency, right? So clearly it's not just magical inexplicable luck fairies.
(Again, nowhere did I say that luck was never involved, so statements like "some luck is always involved" aren't really in dispute. I'm just questioning the extent to which you characterize all this stuff as luck.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So yes, some (many!) people will work in such positions. That is, currently, a fact.
Do they have to? Well, no. They could do something else. They are choosing to work there because they like it compared to the alternatives that they can imagine.
You aren't being realistic. What you say may be true for an individual, it can't be true for all individuals.
The market is always going to favor big businesses over small businesses whenever there is an economy of scale. Big businesses by definition have a lot more grunts than decision makers. Market forces mean that most people won't be able to survive being self employed. There are only so many small business the market will support. To survive, every small business to has to beat the odds. Skill and hard work increase your chances of beating the odds, but the odds still dictate that most people are going to loose.
For most people, it's not a choice between working as a grunt for a big company and starting their own business where they make all the choices. For most people, the choice is between working as a grunt for a big company or not working. There will always be lucky individual exceptions but market forces dictate that those will always be exceptions.
Realistically as long as we are talking market economics, most people won't be able to work for small independent businesses where their influence the major decisions. Realistically, most people can not have any real say in the economic decisions that effect their lives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For example: Why did the company go bankrupt? If it was a failing company, then perhaps you weren't working as hard as you thought. "Hard" work is sort of a sticky concept anyway; hard work isn't inherently valuable. Hard work towards a valuable goal is. If you worked really hard but your company made a product no one wanted, it makes sense you went bankrupt, and that's not luck. That's you making poor predictions about what will be a valuable product.
I've got to admit, I experienced a pretty strong surge of disapproval and even dislike for some of the ideas expressed here, as I understand them. I'll explain, and hopefully that will illustrate how this is for the ideas themselves.
One, the notion that an individual employee-for a large company, mind, not say a small business-can have, by their own adequate or even above-average quality of their work, an impact on whether the entire company succeeds or fails is baffling to me. So strange that it smacks of just a big disconnect. Even if you're really slacking off, if your work is universally sub-par, how will that manage to impact whether the entire company continues to exist or not? They'll just fire you. The quality of your work will generally have an impact on your own financial success, but a large corporation or even just a large company? Seems like nonsense to me.
As for hard work at a company whose offerings simply aren't in demand, well, that depends. Did you take on student loans to train for and stock to invest at a buggy whip company? Then sure, you've made a crappy judgment and your financial failure when that company falters isn't luck. Or did you, say train as an architect or even some of the more skilled end of construction, sinking a lot of your time and money back into making your business more profitable when for all of your adult life, nearly the entire country was swept up in real-estate. You didn't build crappy homes or involve yourself in any way in toxic mortgages, but then one day Wall Street just loses its freaking mind (predictable from a macro view, overall, but then you weren't involved in that-you always did good for a fair payment), and suddenly you're competing with ten desperate contractors for a given job whereas before you had maybe one or two, and that's when people want to hire you to build something at all, rather than just stay where they are or buy something already built. Bad luck, or did you simply make a poor decision about macroeconomics and the national construction business's interaction with major banks? Because you're expected to factor that in too, as well as being good or even great at your actual job.
Where does it end? Just because there turns out to have been a way a disaster or mishap could've been avoided in hindsight doesn't mean being a victim of it isn't just bad luck. People from New Orleans, for example. In hindsight (and even in foresight, for those of us outside the situation), sure, don't live there. Flood eventually. But the people who have lived there for generations, where all their family and personal history says 'we don't have those city-wrecking floods', well why would they question that? All of those people in Japan, well earthquakes are not uncommon. Statistically, there will eventually be one that kills thousands, even hundreds of thousands or who knows, millions. It could be predicted. Do we say to someone whose home was flattened, "This isn't bad luck, this is you making a poor decision about where to live," or do we just skip the damn finger-pointing sometimes and help out, so that a disaster for one family doesnt begin a legacy of misfortune for their descendants? Or perhaps throw up our hands and exclaim that it could've been helped, and helping afterwards, well, they won't learn nothin'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And yeah, of course there is a predictive quality to determining what's valuable, and it's hard to predict that with accuracy. But some companies do this with some consistency, right? So clearly it's not just magical inexplicable luck fairies.
For every company that does, how many are left dead by the wayside for having failed to do so? It isn't, I think we'll agree, an equal number. Not two to one, not five to one. And I don't even mean successes versus failures and mediocre treading-waters, I mean successes versus simply didn't succeed at all, had to quit the field entirely.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what I'm saying, including apparently inferring that I think there's no such thing as luck or happenstance. But that's not the case.
I just think that choices have a lot more to do with peoples' lives than some people credit. If you've got an architectural degree and mountains of debt and the market has dried up, that sucks! Maybe it's time to learn how to code, or to open a restaurant (pro tip: don't open a restaurant).
And (again, 'cause I really think I said this already...) I don't deny that you can work in a company so large that your job has a literally negligible effect on that company. But what I said is that if that's the case, and you don't like that, then clearly that isn't the job for you.
And yes, many companies are that big, but there are also many that... aren't. It's really not hard to find a job where your contributions can have a noticeable, measurable effect on the company's trajectory, if that's important to you. And if it's not important to you, then that's also a decision you made.
Luck and choices both effect where people end up, but their choices, specifically, have a huge effect on what random situations they become exposed to, and how they deal with those situations. So, one last time: I do think that luck obviously effects our lives.
But I also think that lots of people use bad luck as an excuse not to make decisions, or to make (easy) poor decisions. Its a really common trap that many of us find ourselves in at one time or another, and I think it's worth it to try to be aware of this, and take as active a role as possible in improving our situation despite bad luck.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And yeah, of course there is a predictive quality to determining what's valuable, and it's hard to predict that with accuracy. But some companies do this with some consistency, right? So clearly it's not just magical inexplicable luck fairies.
For every company that does, how many are left dead by the wayside for having failed to do so? It isn't, I think we'll agree, an equal number. Not two to one, not five to one. And I don't even mean successes versus failures and mediocre treading-waters, I mean successes versus simply didn't succeed at all, had to quit the field entirely.
Oh, absolutely, predicting customer needs can be really difficult! I'm not sure if this was meant as a criticism of something I said, or if you're just making an observation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:So yes, some (many!) people will work in such positions. That is, currently, a fact.
Do they have to? Well, no. They could do something else. They are choosing to work there because they like it compared to the alternatives that they can imagine.
You aren't being realistic. What you say may be true for an individual, it can't be true for all individuals.
It doesn't need to be. Does it?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The market is always going to favor big businesses over small businesses whenever there is an economy of scale. Big businesses by definition have a lot more grunts than decision makers. Market forces mean that most people won't be able to survive being self employed. There are only so many small business the market will support. To survive, every small business to has to beat the odds. Skill and hard work increase your chances of beating the odds, but the odds still dictate that most people are going to loose.
For most people, it's not a choice between working as a grunt for a big company and starting their own business where they make all the choices. For most people, the choice is between working as a grunt for a big company or not working. There will always be lucky individual exceptions but market forces dictate that those will always be exceptions.
You do realize that there are several huge subsets of jobs between "working for a huge corporation" and "working for yourself," right? Whatever level of autonomy vs. oversight you prefer, there are lots of jobs that have precisely your preferred level of management.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Realistically as long as we are talking market economics, most people won't be able to work for small independent businesses where their influence the major decisions. Realistically, most people can not have any real say in the economic decisions that effect their lives.
You don't necessarily have to be able to influence major decisions to have a noticeable impact on the trajectory of a company. There are lots of jobs where you have no decisions regarding policy but your contribution to a product could nevertheless make or break that product.
It just seems like you're making some massive sweeping generalizations about what people have to do, and I don't agree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
Well, you're sending some mixed messages here. On the one hand, luck plays a factor but on the other hand someone who works in a big company that looks solid to most without specialized economics knowledge (or, I don't know really, you weren't very clear)-when that company goes belly up, hey, they could've known better. Not luck.
quote:I just think that choices have a lot more to do with peoples' lives than some people credit. If you've got an architectural degree and mountains of debt and the market has dried up, that sucks! Maybe it's time to learn how to code, or to open a restaurant (pro tip: don't open a restaurant).
So...don't involve yourself in business where distant macroeconomic factors may actually kill you economically? That wouldn't be bad luck and misfortune, that's bad judgment? I really don't understand what you mean by luck, then. Unless you're killed by a dang falling meteor, chances are there were a variety of things you could've done to save your life: drive more defensively, don't walk through that neighborhood, don't eat too much fish because it might have too much mercury, don't live within a hundred miles of that nuclear plant, don't live near the coasts for hurricanes and flooding, and on and on and on.
quote:And (again, 'cause I really think I said this already...) I don't deny that you can work in a company so large that your job has a literally negligible effect on that company. But what I said is that if that's the case, and you don't like that, then clearly that isn't the job for you.
And yes, many companies are that big, but there are also many that... aren't. It's really not hard to find a job where your contributions can have a noticeable, measurable effect on the company's trajectory, if that's important to you. And if it's not important to you, then that's also a decision you made.
Well I'll just respond to that with this: it may very well not be the job for you. Could very well be the job-for-healthcare-benefits-for-sick-child, though. Or hey, sick parent-it's their decision to get that job, right?
quote:Oh, absolutely, predicting customer needs can be really difficult! I'm not sure if this was meant as a criticism of something I said, or if you're just making an observation.
It was meant as a criticism of your rather cavalier dismissal of the inability of working stiff who nonetheless work faithfully and well to perform this very trick task that even trained professionals regularly fail to perform.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
Well, you're sending some mixed messages here. On the one hand, luck plays a factor but on the other hand someone who works in a big company that looks solid to most without specialized economics knowledge (or, I don't know really, you weren't very clear)-when that company goes belly up, hey, they could've known better. Not luck.
I think the reason you're getting mixed messages is because you're not taking my posts (particularly, you know, the original one, that upset you) in total, but instead focusing on specific passages. The problem is, those passages aren't accurately reflecting the aggregate of what I'm saying.
So! It's not just that I think that luck and choices both play a factor. It's that I think the majority of the time they play a factor in concert.
I'm not saying that the architect exercised poor judgment getting that degree at all! But what might be poor judgment would be if, after the architect jobs dried up, he just kept beating his head on that wall and scrabbled for vanishing contracts at vastly lower bids than he expected.
A better decision might have been to move on to a new career, perhaps one that takes less schooling than architecture, since he needs those student loans paid off ASAP. Or move. Or whatever! He needs to reassess the situation and make the best decision possible.
When bad things happen to you, you are in control of how you react and adapt to those changing circumstances. Obviously some things are so bad that you can't adapt, probably because you're dead, and that's really tragic! But in general, my only point was that often times people will make sub-optimal decisions in the face of bad luck and then place all of the blame for the situation on luck as opposed to taking responsibility for the part they played.
Hopefully that cleared up my messages.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Oh, absolutely, predicting customer needs can be really difficult! I'm not sure if this was meant as a criticism of something I said, or if you're just making an observation.
It was meant as a criticism of your rather cavalier dismissal of the inability of working stiff who nonetheless work faithfully and well to perform this very trick task that even trained professionals regularly fail to perform.
Sure, and lots of people don't have to do that.
In fact, this is why I mentioned to Rabbit that many people choose to work in a job where they don't have to make decisions like that. But that, in itself, was a choice that had a lot of impact on that person's future, right?
To push it into a more stark analogy: If I agree to let you make all my financial decisions, Rakeesh, and then you blow all my money in the stock market, I bear responsibility for my decision, right? (In case it isn't obvious, I also think you bear responsibility for your decision, but that's a separate issue.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sure, and lots of people don't have to do that.
In fact, this is why I mentioned to Rabbit that many people choose to work in a job where they don't have to make decisions like that. But that, in itself, was a choice that had a lot of impact on that person's future, right?
You are still being highly unrealistic about the kinds of options most people have. Based on our many past discussions, you grossly underestimate the coercive power of the market place. Finding a job, any job, is not easy. Most people work where they work because they don't have any other practical options. When you have bills to pay and children to feed you can't just wait for a perfect (or even a good) job to come along. You have to take what you can get now.
There may be lots of great opportunities in the world, but you have to be really lucky to have one just fall in your lap. Finding and pursuing an opportunity usually takes a lot of time and effort so people have to make hard choices. Any time and effort you put into finding a new job is time and effort you can't put into advancing in your current job.
Most people make their most critical career decisions when they are in their teens and early twenties before they really understand the options or know what kind of work they will actually enjoy. Starting over again isn't an option most people have once they've acquired debts and family obligations.
Yes you are right that the choices we make play a large part in whether or not we succeed or fail, but making good choices requires at least as much dumb luck as skill.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Starting over again isn't an option most people have once they've acquired debts and family obligations.
This is so profoundly true, in fact, that economists predict that there will be a persistent economic lassitude in the age cohorts who were seeking employment out of university in 2008-2011. This will have statistically significant effects for the length of these people's lives. It's a generation of people, millions of people, who left school, had debts, wanted to start their lives, and needed to take what they could get, if they could get anything. And that will have negative impacts on them forever. It will never really go away.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Starting over again isn't an option most people have once they've acquired debts and family obligations.
Of course it is.
Setting aside how difficult it may be (and it can certainly be very difficult!) many people "start over" after losing what they thought was a secure career, despite mortgages and kids' college funds and all the rest. And just like any statistical group of people, lots of them fail! Nowhere did I say that people who try are guaranteed success.
But to flatly state that it's not an option flies in the face of obvious fact. This is the kind of language that I'm objecting to.
[ March 20, 2012, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
She said 'for most people'. Are you saying that for every single person who has to 'start over' (let's say with the ultimate goal of paying off debts, whether business or medical or what have you, ensuring their children are safe, healthy, and have an solid opportunity to succeed in life which includes things such as a stable, decent home in a safe neighborhood), doing these things while also maintaining their own health and ability not to eat cat food when they retire...for every single person there is a way, some way, that this can be done?
I simply don't buy it. It flies in the face of my (limited) understating of the world: that sometimes, life isn't fair. And not just unfair in the sense of 'geeze, I really gotta grab hold of my bootstraps!' but unfair in the sense that some people, even when they do all of the things right a reasonable, prudent person would (not what turns out to have been best in hindsight!), sometimes people just don't make it. I'm not saying that's what happens most of the time when people don't make it, but I don't see how anyone could deny that it does occur.
You can retain some optimism (as unhelpful as that is, really) and still recognize that sometimes things aren't going to work out, and it couldn't be avoided.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh: You're asking me if I think that some people who "start over" will not succeed, and not be able to pay off their debts, and generally just end up in a crappy situation because they tried?
Yeah, absolutely. I don't think I ever said otherwise, but clearly I used ambiguous language, so: Yes. I think that's true. Some (many!) people who try to start over will fail.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Someone earlier talked about criteria for success, which I think is interesting and gets to some of what you and Rabbit and Orincoro have said.
If someone has a degree and can't do anything with it, did they fail? And if they instead get a job fixing cars, which they could've done without the college degree, does that mean they failed? What if they're able to feed their family with that job, and they find that they actually sort of like it? Still failure? Or did they change their criteria for success?
I think a much bigger failure would be someone who kept trying to get a nonexistent job with their now-worthless degree, and sunk further and further into debt, because they weren't willing to adapt to their new situation.
I'm not saying everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Rakeesh, nor do I necessarily think that they can. But lots of people make bad decisions, ignoring things like opportunity costs and overvaluing things like sunk costs. Ultimately, whatever luck befalls you, you're still responsible for the choices you make, and those choices drastically effect the quality of your life.
It seems like you keep thinking I'm saying something beyond this, that I'm making some sort of policy endorsement or something, but I'm not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yeah, absolutely. I don't think I ever said otherwise, but clearly I used ambiguous language, so: Yes. I think that's true. Some (many!) people who try to start over will fail.
Then what was your point? That there's a difference between technically possible and feasible? Does that point need making? Are we at the stage where it is important that we point out that it is still concievably possible to start over in life under enormous debt and with young children, and maybe with no education, or maybe we throw in a nice debilitating disease? Still technically possible.
Eh, see it just strikes me as disingenuous, to say that anybody *can* do something, as a defense (implicit or otherwise, most of yours being implicit), of the status quo; when that status quo is quite obviously favorable for some, and disfavor able for others in very glaring ways. And not like, I'm rich and your not, but like: I'm rich, and you eat gristle and Cheerios and have rickets.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Dan, where do you stand on the just world hypothesis? Do you think you are affected by this bias?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think it makes sense as a description of a perception that many people have to some extent or another, sure.
Consciously, no, I don't think the world is somehow fundamentally just or that bad things only happen to bad people or anything like that. I grew up believing in karma, because my parents are Buddhists, but I haven't believed in it for a long time. I don't feel the need to make a victim into a bad person in my head for the world to continue to make sense.
Of course, the rub with any psychological bias is that it doesn't matter what I think, psychologists (and armchair psychologists) can decide what my unconscious biases are regardless, based on how they interpret my words and actions.
That's my answer to your question.
Your question made me think about this related statement that goes back to my previous comments:
I think that people are 100% responsible for their actions and choices. That doesn't mean that they are 100% responsible for things that happen to them. But it does mean they are responsible for how they react.
It often seems to me that people view responsibility as a fixed resource that is divvied up between various actors and external forces. So, if a guy with a good job who was beaten as a kid robs and kills someone, he is maybe 90% responsible and his upbringing is 10% responsible. And if a desperately poor person robs and kills someone, he is, say, 60% responsible, while his situation and environment is 40% responsible. Modify the percentages as you see fit.
I don't agree. Despite the fact that horrible things happen to people, because people are thinking beings they can decide how they are going to react to their circumstances. They are thus responsible for their actions. It has nothing to do with the world being just or not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, you've established that you're hostile to people "deciding" what your biases are. Which reveals a rather powerful bias, by the way.
But anyway, you're sort of ignoring the heart of the issue here. The just-world hypothesis posits that we *derogate* those who are *victimized* in ways that are out of their control. We may do this to preserve a sense of order and compel ourselves to maintain a social contract, despite the existence of abhorrent results, that are *not* explained by people's choices in a rational way.
So you talking about what *is* within somebody's control is rather avoiding the meaty bits. The bias only comes in when something goes wrong- out of the victim's control.
For instance, one experiment involved a set of stories read by test subjects. They describe a normal social encounter. In the control group, the social encounter ends naturally and the group is asked to talk about the people involved; their conduct and their decision making.
Then a second group reads the same story, but in this story, the social encounter ends with a rape. In this group, the responses to the same questions show the victim of the attack derogated by the readers.
What is significant here is that people view choices as negative when the results are negative. And this leads us to hold responsible for their choices, the same people who we would laud for those choices, if they did not end in failure. This encompasses a huge range of decisions: walking to your car at night, to making a financial investment, to getting married. You can talk all you want about how people are responsible for their choices, but we only hold people "responsible" when the outcome is a bad one. Even when that outcome might not have been either foreseeable, or even likely.
I mean, you say something like: a person is 100% responsible for his choices, but not for what happens to him... So: I run across the street, and a loose cobble stone trips me, I hit my head on a tram track, a car comes around a corner, and runs me over. My fault? I am 100% responsible for my decision to run across the street. If I didn't do it, I wouldn't be dead.
Is there not a decision in life of any accident victim that could save them their suffering? Not turning left, not leaving the house 5 minutes early, not 5 minutes late, not picking a particular train, driving in the rain... on and on. What does this idea of responsibility *mean*?
ETA: I don't want you to get all insecure about this and hit the panic "You're Saying No-One is Responsible for Anything" button. I'm not saying that. I'm saying an evolved human being *examines* his willingness to blame and derogate others because he worries about the nature of the universe in which he lives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan_Frank, I'd like to apologize for implying you had "blind faith that markets rewarded people fairly". That didn't come out the way I intended. You and are on the opposite extremes of the spectrum in our opinion of free markets and we both know that. It doesn't need to be said that I think you put more faith in market fairness than I believe is reasonably justified, just like it doesn't need to be said that you most likely think that my distrust for markets is unjustified.
I didn't make the comment to insult you or even rebut what you were saying. I made it to point out that your arguments were begging the question. Given the divide between us, it isn't sufficient for you to simply say "It's not luck, it's a matter of making good choices". That is the root of our argument. If you are trying to persuade me that its probably your fault if you work for a company that fails, you've got to back it up with more than an unsupported claim.
As I understand it, the question we are discussing is why some people are more likely to see success or failure as deserved while others put more weight on the role of good fortune.
What I've learned from your points is that a person who believes that markets are usually fair is much more likely to also believe that most people get what the deserve in a market system, but that's just a circular argument. Why are some people more likely to believe that our system rewards people fairly while others are more likely to see unfairness.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Huge post just got eaten. Probably try to retype it later.
Grr. My own stupid fault. Meant to hit ctrl-tab and hit ctrl-r instead.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Here's the second attempt at this post. Still frustrated at losing the last one.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, you've established that you're hostile to people "deciding" what your biases are. Which reveals a rather powerful bias, by the way.
I wouldn't say I'm hostile.
However, I do consider large swathes of psychology to be basically hogwash. Particularly whenever it gets bogged down in behavioral genetic determinism, endorses violation of liberty, extrapolates all sorts of causation from a few correlations, and generally just engages in thoroughly awful epistemology.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But anyway, you're sort of ignoring the heart of the issue here. The just-world hypothesis posits that we *derogate* those who are *victimized* in ways that are out of their control. We may do this to preserve a sense of order and compel ourselves to maintain a social contract, despite the existence of abhorrent results, that are *not* explained by people's choices in a rational way.
So you talking about what *is* within somebody's control is rather avoiding the meaty bits. The bias only comes in when something goes wrong- out of the victim's control.
I wouldn't say I've derogated anyone, and I think this gets to the crux of the misunderstanding.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For instance, one experiment involved a set of stories read by test subjects. They describe a normal social encounter. In the control group, the social encounter ends naturally and the group is asked to talk about the people involved; their conduct and their decision making.
Then a second group reads the same story, but in this story, the social encounter ends with a rape. In this group, the responses to the same questions show the victim of the attack derogated by the readers.
I spent a lot more time on this analysis in the last post, but I'm too burnt out to try and recreate it in full. Here's my best attempt:
I don't know much about the experiment in question, so if my theorizing below is wrong, that's fair.
Studies and experiments don't generally provide explanations for human behavior, they provide raw data. Trying to create explanations about that data is where psychologists often go wrong.
You don't explain how the victim was derogated by the readers. In this case, while there are absolutely awful misogynistic people who will say the woman was "asking for it" or some similar garbage, I'm going to set that aside for now. If they were instead pointing out behaviors the victim engaged in that could have made her more vulnerable (e.g. leaving a drink unattended) then I don't necessarily think this illustrates the just-world perception you think it does.
Their observations after-the-fact are going to be influenced by the most important events in the story. When there is no rape, the priority of observations will be very different than when there is a rape. An unattended drink, for example, is normally totally unremarkable. But if there was a date rape, suddenly it's quite relevant and worth mentioning.
Heck, it relates to what you said here:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What is significant here is that people view choices as negative when the results are negative.
Except I wouldn't say they view choices as negative, I'd say they are more likely to notice negative choices.
I'm going to go into this further below, so stay tuned.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And this leads us to hold responsible for their choices, the same people who we would laud for those choices, if they did not end in failure. This encompasses a huge range of decisions: walking to your car at night, to making a financial investment, to getting married. You can talk all you want about how people are responsible for their choices, but we only hold people "responsible" when the outcome is a bad one. Even when that outcome might not have been either foreseeable, or even likely.
This is patently false.
We still hold people responsible for such choices, we just don't use that word. We usually call it "credit."
Means the same thing, though.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I mean, you say something like: a person is 100% responsible for his choices, but not for what happens to him... So: I run across the street, and a loose cobble stone trips me, I hit my head on a tram track, a car comes around a corner, and runs me over. My fault? I am 100% responsible for my decision to run across the street. If I didn't do it, I wouldn't be dead.
Is there not a decision in life of any accident victim that could save them their suffering? Not turning left, not leaving the house 5 minutes early, not 5 minutes late, not picking a particular train, driving in the rain... on and on. What does this idea of responsibility *mean*?
I'll dispense with the rape example for now, because rape is a very sensitive subject and comes with a lot of baggage (again, due to seriously messed up people who genuinely think women ask for it and men are to be excused for committing it, which has nothing to do with the just world bias). I'll shift the example to something less controversial. If you object for some reason, let me know.
Nobody chooses to be robbed. But people often make choices that increase their vulnerability to robbery. We do this every day, to some extent or another. This is simple risk assessment. If someone robs me, they are responsible for the robbery. I am responsible for my vulnerability to robbery. Neither invalidates or absolves the other. He's still the one that committed a morally evil and legally proscribed act, and no matter how vulnerable I made myself that isn't going to change.
I don't think that people should live in fear of robbery and take unnecessary precautions. Actually, I think that the most prevalent attitudes in our culture re: robbery are a pretty good framework for that risk assessment. Do the basic stuff like lock your doors, don't leave a laptop unattended in the passenger seat of your car, don't go wandering alone down dimly lit alleys in bad parts of town, etc. A common sense approach to robbery prevention seems like the best approach to me, so there's no reason to criticize such behavior. So if someone gets robbed, and they didn't make any egregious mistakes causing excessive vulnerability, there's not much point in discussing that aspect. It's still there, but so what?
By the same token, I think most people take reasonable precautions to avoid being hit by cars most of the time. If they are hit anyway, it's probably not worth it to criticize them unless they did something unreasonable to expose them to great risk (like sprint across the street during rush hour).
Conversely, I have a lot more problems with the prevailing cultural attitudes surrounding issues like financial planning, career and education expectations and development, and similar issues. I see a lot more to criticize in the typical ways people approach these issues, so I will do so. That doesn't change the fact that if some external force acts against them, they didn't cause that. It's not their fault if the stock market crashes. But if they had all of their money in the stock market, it may be worth observing that they exposed themselves to considerable vulnerability.
None of these potential criticisms preclude sympathy, by the way. You can be kind and sympathetic to someone's plight while still mentally observing ways they can improve for future reference. You need not point them out to them if they don't want you too, either. Unsolicited criticism rarely helps improve someone.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ETA: I don't want you to get all insecure about this and hit the panic "You're Saying No-One is Responsible for Anything" button. I'm not saying that. I'm saying an evolved human being *examines* his willingness to blame and derogate others because he worries about the nature of the universe in which he lives.
I agree that blaming and derogating others is not usually valuable.
I also think that an evolved (rational) human being should examine his willingness to deflect responsibility and rationalize his mistakes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Setting aside how difficult it may be (and it can certainly be very difficult!) many people "start over" after losing what they thought was a secure career, despite mortgages and kids' college funds and all the rest. And just like any statistical group of people, lots of them fail! Nowhere did I say that people who try are guaranteed success.
You are completely misinterpreting what I meant by "having the option of starting over". If you just lost everything, you don't have the option to start over, you are being forced to start over.
What I was talking about was this hypothetical guy who is working as a grunt for a big corporation and who you say has all kinds of other options. His choice is between staying with his current less than satisfying job or starting over somewhere else. As you noted, starting over somewhere else is always risky. Its going to fail a lot of the time, but sometimes it can pay off big. It isn't just a question of whether he's willing to take risks because the consequences of failure aren't the same for everyone. The consequences of failing are going to be a lot more severe for a guy who has debts to pay and children to feed than for the guy who has a hundred thousand dollar trust fund he can fall back on if needed. Legally, the two guys both have the same options. Practically speaking, the guy with few responsibilities and safety net has a lot more options in life than the guy with debts to pay and kids to feed.
Economic circumstances have the same coercive power as governments. The law doesn't physically prevent me from robbing a bank, it just increases the risk of failure. If we are being hyper-literal, bank robbery is one of everybody's options but for most of us the risk of getting caught and the associate penalties take that option off the table. Economic circumstances limit peoples options in exactly the same way as laws -- they change the consequences of failure.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well said, Rabbit. I completely agree.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We still hold people responsible for such choices, we just don't use that word. We usually call it "credit."
Dan, What I'm getting from what you've said is that you think that as long as people are free to choose, whatever results from their choices, good or bad, is mostly fair. You seem to be saying that as long as your lot in life is the result of your choices, you deserve what you get to at least some extent. Am I understanding you correctly?
Let me give you an example. Suppose three people, Bob, Sue and Joe, each inherit $100,000 from a wealthy uncle. Joe put the money in a CD that earns 2% interest. Bob and Sue risk the full amount playing roulette. Bob bets on even, Sue bets on odd. Sue wins and walks away with $200,000. Bob looses and walks away with nothing. Do you think that its reasonable to say that to at least some extent they all got what they deserved? How much difference would it make if Bob and Sue had gambled the money playing poker or betting on the NCAA tournament instead playing roulette? What if they'd put the money into a high risk investment? If it makes a difference whether the choice involved any skill, how much skill would you say is needed to conclude that its fair that Sue won and Bob lost?
If you think the outcome at the roulette table was fair and that Bob, Sue and Joe all got what they deserved (to any degree), I think you've stripped the words "fair" and "deserve" of any real meaning. Deserve implies an equivalence between the intrinsic virtue of an action or a person and the reward. To say one persons choices deserve more reward than another necessarily implies that person is, by virtue of their choices, intrinsically more valuable than the other. If the difference between two peoples choices is the result of differences in their character -- things like hard work, dedication, creativity or their willingness to take risks, then saying one chooser deserves more than the other has some meaning. But if the differences between their choices is random chance or the result of factors beyond the choosers control, then saying one chooser deserves more than another is saying that what a person deserves has little or nothing to do with their character.
Fairness implies, at least to me, a level playing field. It implies that everyone has the same options to choose from and that the real consequences of any choice are the same for everyone. It implies that everyone faces the same rewards and penalties for making a "good" or "bad" choice.
Perhaps in this case that seems true to you. Bob, Sue and Joe all risk loosing or gaining $100,000 at the roulette table. But that ignores the very real fact the benefits and costs of gaining $100,000 dollars are not the same for everyone. Suppose in our example that Bob is young and single. Bob's wealthy influential father was able to help him find a job where he earns $200,000 a year and has given him a trust fund worth $1,000,000. If he looses a hundred grand, he can take it out of his trust and he has plenty of time to make it up before he retires. Loosing or winning a $100,000 isn't going to make any real difference in his life. It won't open or close any doors.
Sue has a job earning $50,000 a year, no savings and two kids that are almost college age. A hundred thousand dollars would make it possible for her to send her kids to an elite University. Another hundred thousand would allow her to start her own business, go back to school or save for a better retirement. For her, that money could make a huge difference in her life but without it she'll still be OK.
Joe also works earning $50,000 a year, has two kids and no real savings. One of his kids has a serious illness and has run up $90,000 in unpaid medical bills. Because of that, Joe's salary no longer covers all his bills. Without the hundred thousand dollars, he's facing loosing his house. Just like Sue, an additional hundred thousand would open up lots of opportunity for Joe, but without the first hundred grand his family is going to end up homeless.
To me, saying the outcome of this scenario was in any way fair because everyone had the same options ignores the fact that these people were absolutely not faced with the same choice. The consequences of winning or loosing were not the same. The rewards of winning and the penalty for loosing were not equal for these three people. Even if all three people have the same basic willingness to take risks and the same understanding of the risks, they aren't faced with making the same choice.
Their choices are going to say more about their circumstances than their character, and that is the opposite of what I mean by "deserving" and "fairness".
[ March 21, 2012, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Without the hundred thousand, she can keep living a OK middle class life but a hundred thousand dollars would make it possible for her to send her kids to an elite University.
[nitpick]
What elite university costs $12,500 a year? (Two kids, so 8 years.) Most state schools cost almost that much these days.
[/nitpick]
(I heartily agree with your larger point, though.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Without the hundred thousand, she can keep living a OK middle class life but a hundred thousand dollars would make it possible for her to send her kids to an elite University.
[nitpick]
What elite university costs $12,500 a year? (Two kids, so 8 years.) Most state schools cost almost that much these days.
[/nitpick]
(I heartily agree with your larger point, though.)
[nitpick]
Yes, I know attending an elite privite school like Stanford, Cal Tech or Harvard will cost a lot more than the $12,500 per year, but I didn't say that $100,000 would pay the full cost of sending two kids to an elite University. I said it would make it possible. I don't think its that outlandish to think an extra $12,500/year per kid would make that difference for a lot of middle income people. [/nitpick]
(If your point was that a college education, even at state schools, has become exorbitantly expensive for most middle income people, I hardily agree.)
[ March 21, 2012, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's become *scandalously* expensive to attend: "public" universities. Even more so for people who are expected to fork over half or more of their family's disposable income, just because they technically can.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Fiscal conservatives like the idea that luck is a minor portion of our current status, but the decisions we make are the real key to any success. Hence the successful person is just the person that made the right decisions and the unemployed person deserves their fate because they made the worst decisions.
That means if you are a factory worker in a factory that gets shut down, its you fault for being a factory worker when you should have been in management.
The fact that there are 100 factory jobs for every management job, and very few openings in the management at any given time is besides the point. Its still your fault.
Which makes me wonder how I am doing compared to one of their leaders--President George W. Bush.
I got excellent grades in a public high school. He got average grades in a prestigious private school, one that my parents could not afford to send me to. Obviously I picked the wrong parents.
He went to an Ivy league school. I went to an Ivy league school. I studied, did my work and got fair grades, but not great ones. He partied, did drugs, drunk to excess, and still managed to pass.
I went to work for one of the biggest corporations in the country, in the new field of computer science, in sales which was where most of the world's millionaires came from.
He was given jobs by his family.
He apologized for his mistakes, failed at some businesses, became President, and retired in wealth.
I am still working in sales.
I have made mistakes, but none seem to be as big and life changing as the ones he made early on, yet he somehow had the LUCK to succeed far beyond me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
You picked the wrong parents, duh. That was a huge mistake and next time you should do better.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
$100,000 would not make it possible for me to send two kids to an elite university. One, maybe.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A lot of this conversation sounds like middle class people discussing problems, not people in poverty. And poverty is more than what you make. I lived in poor neighborhoods and have been on government services and while my income might have been low enough to qualify, I don't think I have ever been in poverty. Someone once explained the difference to me the following way:
You go to the grocery store and there are two brands of paper towels. Brand A is 5 for $5 and brand B is 20 for $10. You need toilet paper and you will use it no question. For detail oriented people, you use 5 rolls a month. You have room for storage. There will not be a sale where toilet paper is cheaper than 20 for $10 (it is a great sale). What do you buy and how much of it?
Middle class- brand B, whatever amount comfortably fits in house.
Poverty- brand A- I have $5 in my budget for toliet paper and if I buy $10, I risk an overdraft charge, which means that my great deal on tp actually can cost me over $40 and make my credit even worse than it already is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: You picked the wrong parents, duh. That was a huge mistake and next time you should do better.
Seriously, guys. For being such a dumb mistake, people are making it more and more often!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:We still hold people responsible for such choices, we just don't use that word. We usually call it "credit."
Dan, What I'm getting from what you've said is that you think that as long as people are free to choose, whatever results from their choices, good or bad, is mostly fair. You seem to be saying that as long as your lot in life is the result of your choices, you deserve what you get to at least some extent. Am I understanding you correctly?
Let me give you an example. Suppose three people, Bob, Sue and Joe, each inherit $100,000 from a wealthy uncle. Joe put the money in a CD that earns 2% interest. Bob and Sue risk the full amount playing roulette. Bob bets on even, Sue bets on odd. Sue wins and walks away with $200,000. Bob looses and walks away with nothing. Do you think that its reasonable to say that to at least some extent they all got what they deserved? How much difference would it make if Bob and Sue had gambled the money playing poker or betting on the NCAA tournament instead playing roulette? What if they'd put the money into a high risk investment? If it makes a difference whether the choice involved any skill, how much skill would you say is needed to conclude that its fair that Sue won and Bob lost?
If you think the outcome at the roulette table was fair and that Bob, Sue and Joe all got what they deserved (to any degree), I think you've stripped the words "fair" and "deserve" of any real meaning. Deserve implies an equivalence between the intrinsic virtue of an action or a person and the reward. To say one persons choices deserve more reward than another necessarily implies that person is, by virtue of their choices, intrinsically more valuable than the other. If the difference between two peoples choices is the result of differences in their character -- things like hard work, dedication, creativity or their willingness to take risks, then saying one chooser deserves more than the other has some meaning. But if the differences between their choices is random chance or the result of factors beyond the choosers control, then saying one chooser deserves more than another is saying that what a person deserves has little or nothing to do with their character.
Fairness implies, at least to me, a level playing field. It implies that everyone has the same options to choose from and that the real consequences of any choice are the same for everyone. It implies that everyone faces the same rewards and penalties for making a "good" or "bad" choice.
Perhaps in this case that seems true to you. Bob, Sue and Joe all risk loosing or gaining $100,000 at the roulette table. But that ignores the very real fact the benefits and costs of gaining $100,000 dollars are not the same for everyone. Suppose in our example that Bob is young and single. Bob's wealthy influential father was able to help him find a job where he earns $200,000 a year and has given him a trust fund worth $1,000,000. If he looses a hundred grand, he can take it out of his trust and he has plenty of time to make it up before he retires. Loosing or winning a $100,000 isn't going to make any real difference in his life. It won't open or close any doors.
Sue has a job earning $50,000 a year, no savings and two kids that are almost college age. A hundred thousand dollars would make it possible for her to send her kids to an elite University. Another hundred thousand would allow her to start her own business, go back to school or save for a better retirement. For her, that money could make a huge difference in her life but without it she'll still be OK.
Joe also works earning $50,000 a year, has two kids and no real savings. One of his kids has a serious illness and has run up $90,000 in unpaid medical bills. Because of that, Joe's salary no longer covers all his bills. Without the hundred thousand dollars, he's facing loosing his house. Just like Sue, an additional hundred thousand would open up lots of opportunity for Joe, but without the first hundred grand his family is going to end up homeless.
To me, saying the outcome of this scenario was in any way fair because everyone had the same options ignores the fact that these people were absolutely not faced with the same choice. The consequences of winning or loosing were not the same. The rewards of winning and the penalty for loosing were not equal for these three people. Even if all three people have the same basic willingness to take risks and the same understanding of the risks, they aren't faced with making the same choice.
Their choices are going to say more about their circumstances than their character, and that is the opposite of what I mean by "deserving" and "fairness".
Part of the problem here is that "fair" and "deserve" are both words fraught with lots of conflicting connotations.
You talk a lot about consequences of failure being different for different people, etc. And that's all true, but I don't precisely see the point. The consequences of any given decision will be wildly different for any other person making that decision. People are unique, and their situations are unique, and their knowledge is unique, and their goals are unique. So the best possible choice will be different for each person.
I think people should be free to choose from whatever options are available to them , and if we want to criticize their choices to decide if they decided well or poorly, it's essential that we do so by their lights.
If you assume everyone has the same goal (say, accumulate ten million dollars), then some people will, through luck, be more able to accomplish that goal than others. It seems like you think that is unfair. But this assumes homogenous goals across all people, which is a bad assumption, because people can and do have varying goals.
Presumably the solution to these people being in different financial situations is to put everyone on equal footing, taking money from those with more and giving it to those with less, etc. until everyone is equal. This assumes that homogenous beginnings would be beneficial, which I also think is false, and impossibly utopian to boot. (It also assumes it's moral to use coercion to take from people, but I'll leave that one alone.)
I think expecting or desiring homogeny in either of those areas is a completely wrong way to approach it. Perhaps if absolute homogeny of beginnings was intrinsic (as opposed to requiring extensive force), then homogeny of goals would make sense. That is, if we all were born in exactly the same place, with exactly the same money, parents, physical form, etc. then it would be logical that the best goal for each of us would be identical.
But we aren't. And that sounds sort of horrifying to me anyway. Heck, one of the only areas where we do have homogeny (we have brains capable of universal knowledge creation) most people aren't interested in setting good goals (learning to think critically, be rational, etc.)
When it comes to financial and educational and similar areas, we have different goals, and should. And, the same way some people make bad choices in achieving their goals, people also make bad choices in setting goals.
I think that "Deserve" in general is a terrible word for this discussion, because of some of the implicit moral judgments you (and probably others) see connoted by it.
You said: "To say one persons choices deserve more reward than another necessarily implies that person is, by virtue of their choices, intrinsically more valuable than the other. "
To the extent that this is true, and you want to attribute "deserve" language to things like your example scenarios, I would say that both Bob & Sue "deserve" to lose their money, since they gambled it on a chance-based game. That Sue did not was a lucky happenstance for her, that Bob did was unlucky for him, but their luck doesn't change the fact that they made bad decisions (well, unless they think that playing Roulette is $100,000 worth of fun, in which case their decisions were okay I guess, though I think they made the wrong decision elsewhere in their life when they decided that Roulette was fun.)
If they'd played poker or some other largely skill based game, they would "deserve" whatever they won or lost, because they chose to put their money on the line in a game of skill.
You say: "But if the differences between their choices is random chance or the result of factors beyond the choosers control, then saying one chooser deserves more than another is saying that what a person deserves has little or nothing to do with their character."
Except that they both chose to enter a game which involves factors beyond their control! They chose to leave it to chance! They didn't have to do that, right? They weren't coerced into gambling their money.
Your analysis of the financial status of Joe, Bob, and Sue seems to relate back to what I said earlier about people being unique, with unique goals.
Even before I knew their backgrounds, I thought Joe made the best decision of the three of them (though certainly not the best decision he could have possibly made). Now that I know more, this is largely cemented, although I wonder about putting the money in a CD if it's most going to be taken out immediately to pay medical expenses. I'll go on the charitable assumption that Joe found a risk-free CD and this all happened a few years ago so that a 2% rate is within the realm of possibility. (As an aside, with the background it's now even more clear that Sue is particularly bad at decision making.)
You said: "Even if all three people have the same basic willingness to take risks and the same understanding of the risks, they aren't faced with making the same choice."
Exactly!
It goes so much deeper than their current situation, too. You can keep tracing their choices back and back and back. Was having two kids with no savings the best thing for Sue & Joe to do, respectively? Did they get complacent once they made $50,000 because that covered their expenses, instead of striving to make $55,000? And on and on and on.
Whether or not any given choice they made is/was the right choice needs to be determined based on their situation.
If Joe spent his $100k on medical expenses for his son, Sue spent her $100k building a startup she'd been planning for years, and Bob spent his $100k on investments, then it's totally possible that they each made the best possible choice they could make by their lights.
And you could say, well, Bob's investments will have huge returns, so that's unfair. Or you could say Sue's startup will get acquired by Microsoft and she'll make billions, and that's unfair. Or it will fail and she'll go bankrupt, which is also unfair. And through all of this, Joe didn't get to use the money to make more money at all, he just had to spend it on keeping his son alive and then go back to work, so that's unfair.
But you're not analyzing the choices by the individual's preferences. It seems that you're applying some top-down arbitrary metric of fairness. Fair for who? Each individual? Society? Does Bob's ability to invest his $100 grand somehow harm Sue's ability to make her own business, or Joe's ability to save his son? If so, how? If not, then how is it unfair?
And of course, the big question: How would you make these situations more fair?
If it is unacceptable that some people have more than other people, how do you solve this? Through force, or persuasion? Is there a third option?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Except that they both chose to enter a game which involves factors beyond their control! They chose to leave it to chance! They didn't have to do that, right? They weren't coerced into gambling their money.
Try carrying your take on this analogy over to real life, though. You'll find you can't, because there's actually no risk-free way to live. We are, in a sense, coerced into gambling. The only choice is which risky game to play.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sings*
♫ You can't win! You can't break even! And you can't get ou-ou-out of the gaaaaaame! ♫
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Except that they both chose to enter a game which involves factors beyond their control! They chose to leave it to chance! They didn't have to do that, right? They weren't coerced into gambling their money.
Try carrying your take on this analogy over to real life, though. You'll find you can't, because there's actually no risk-free way to live. We are, in a sense, coerced into gambling. The only choice is which risky game to play.
Sure, the world has problems and risks, and we have to work around those until we solve them. That's sad, but that seems like a bit of a non sequitur. I'll return to my earlier question: What solution do you propose to solve the risk of, well, being alive?
In the mean time, we can mitigate our risks. The example in question, playing roulette, is choosing to take on excessive (monetary) risk.
Or we can look at non-monetary risk: When a crab fishing boat sinks, and people die, it's tragic, and we rightfully mourn that loss. Nobody says the crab fishermen "deserved" to die. That would be an inhuman thing to say.
But it's not precisely "unfair," either. It's a known risk in that profession. The people who take that job are taking on more risk than people who work at McDonald's.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What solution do you propose to solve the risk of, well, being alive?
Well, as you probably know given our previous discussions, I have a couple of ideas that I think would help with the problem. Namely, single-payer health care, and (to put it in your terms) rich people being forced to give some of their money to poor people. Or as I would prefer to put it, defining "private property" such that some of what you "earn" ends up "belonging" to the public.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, you still seem to be labouring under the notion that all options and all choices are available to everyone if they really want to make those choices. It is fine for people to have different goals and for only a few people to want to be billionaires but whatever the goals, people need a clean, safe, decent place to live, healthy food to eat, healthcare, and at lease some education to achieve them. No one is saying that everyone should have (or want) the same things, but some things are basic and too many people don't have those basics.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What solution do you propose to solve the risk of, well, being alive?
I don't think that we should just sieze all of the resources and then redistribute them evenly, but I do think we should attempt to provide a system in which hitting rock bottom takes considerable deliberate effort or involves events which are beyond our capacity to substantially mitigate as a society. Personal health care issues, for instance, should never be a cause for financial ruin.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Personal health care issues, for instance, should never be a cause for financial ruin.
Is there a limit to this principle?
For example, what if that personal health care issue is, say, a complex, aggressive, nearly untreatable cancer for which the only treatment is experimental, unreliable, and costs, let's say, a few million dollars?
Should society still foot that bill? Or is that enough of an edge case that we would expect the victim to pay for most of it, and end up financially ruined? Is it okay for them to be financially ruined in the goal of not dying to that cancer, or is that still unacceptable?
One problem with society or government being responsible for paying for things like that is that a logical extension of this, especially for experimental treatments, is that society can then deny the person that treatment because it's too expensive/unreliable/etc. We already see this in areas that are extensively controlled, such as organ transplants. Right?
And insurance companies do it too, by not covering certain treatments... the big difference between this and a situation where government is denying you is that all insurance companies can do is not pay for it, they can't stop you from going around them and paying out of pocket.
Whereas government (see organ transplants) can say "No, your odds of surviving even with this treatment is minimal and it would cost too much, and it could better help someone else." and then enforce this statement with coercion if necessary.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... people need a clean, safe, decent place to live, healthy food to eat, healthcare, and at lease some education to achieve them. No one is saying that everyone should have (or want) the same things, but some things are basic and too many people don't have those basics.
I think this is an interesting approach.
What I find especially interesting is that, if we were to look back at a less advanced version of our culture (or perhaps a less advanced culture elsewhere in the world today), we could see a similar statement, but it probably would have been focused on things like enough food to eat and water that wasn't going to give you dysentery, rather than healthcare. (Disclaimer: Maybe I'm wrong, and leftists have been pushing for "free" healthcare for centuries, I don't actually know for sure.)
Why might that be?
I think the obvious answer is that our society was less wealthy (and 3rd world societies are less wealthy), so the goalposts were different. More people were impoverished, so more people were starving, so that was a huge issue. Poverty today is essentially unrecognizable compared to poverty 100 or 200 years ago. Death by starvation is not a going concern in America today, so we can shift the goalpost to something like housing or healthcare (or "healthy" food).
Of course, once society is wealthy enough that healthcare is no longer a going concern for the impoverished, presumably something else will be defined as a basic right. A right that poor people have to do without unfairly, and so we should subsidize or otherwise as a society pay so that they gain access to X new right.
I don't mean this as a slippery slope, "if we agree that healthcare is a right, what next!?" I just think it's going to happen regardless.
As society evolves, more and more awesome services will become so pervasive and expected that we will see them as a "right." My off-the-cuff prediction of an upcoming right is "the internet," in case you're curious.
I think it's great that our society advances in this way, so that we can expect better and better baseline quality of life.
The thing is, the biggest contributing factor to this advancement, to poverty today being so much better than poverty of the past, is that our whole society is vastly wealthier than 100 years ago. Even at the lowest echelons. And I think that going forward, overall wealth and innovation will continue to be the biggest driving force in improving everyone's life.
So when we look at potential fiat-based solutions to social problems, that create additional tax and regulatory burdens against increasing the wealth of our civilization, I'm very wary.
I think that's a good way to slow down the progress that's going to solve the current problems of our day (and then give rise to the next set of better problems, obviously).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: And insurance companies do it too, by not covering certain treatments... the big difference between this and a situation where government is denying you is that all insurance companies can do is not pay for it, they can't stop you from going around them and paying out of pocket.
In single-payer systems, the government will never stop you from paying out of pocket either.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So when we look at potential fiat-based solutions to social problems, that create additional tax and regulatory burdens against increasing the wealth of our civilization, I'm very wary.
I think that's a good way to slow down the progress that's going to solve the current problems of our day (and then give rise to the next set of better problems, obviously).
Dan, if you think wealth redistribution is likely to have a negative effect on the economy, does the same go for individual charity? If the American rich started voluntarily giving a larger portion of their income to the poor, having the same effect as a more robust welfare state but without the middle man, would that make us all worse off in the long run?
I agree that there are some good arguments against burdensome regulation, but we're not talking about that.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think you're right, by the way, that what the left-leaning thinker is going to count as a right will be relative to what we have the capacity to provide. I stand by that. I hope that someday, millennia down the road, maybe once we have widespread nanotech, people will have a right to whatever material goods they want and the notion of private property will essentially be restricted to real estate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: We already see this in areas that are extensively controlled, such as organ transplants. Right?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Whereas government (see organ transplants) can say "No, your odds of surviving even with this treatment is minimal and it would cost too much, and it could better help someone else." and then enforce this statement with coercion if necessary.
That is a GROSS misstatement of how the organ prioritization rules work. It is NOT a question of excess cost. It is a question of limited organ availability. The organization that makes those decisions has to allocate organs on the basis or urgency of need and likelihood of surviving. Relative cost is not the issue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is there a limit to this principle?
Sure, but that limit is some distance from the status quo. The single-payer systems around the world that exist now have protocols for these things which we can model ours on or improve upon.
quote:For example, what if that personal health care issue is, say, a complex, aggressive, nearly untreatable cancer for which the only treatment is experimental, unreliable, and costs, let's say, a few million dollars?
Should society still foot that bill? Or is that enough of an edge case that we would expect the victim to pay for most of it, and end up financially ruined? Is it okay for them to be financially ruined in the goal of not dying to that cancer, or is that still unacceptable?
Treatments that expensive aren't a matter of financial ruin - they are too expensive to get in the first place. Those people just get sicker and die if they don't have insurance or assets. It's the ~$100K-$300K proven treatments (and treatments of complications) that I'm talking about.
My wife had to have a section of intestine removed last year. The operation, hospital stay, and follow-up treatments cost the better part of $100K. There was nothing experimental or high-risk about it but the bill would have wiped us out if I wasn't fortunate enough to have one of the ~50% of private sector jobs that provides medical insurance. It's also for a chronic condition that will likely continue to cost us a fair amount of money over the course of her life. It's not a lifestyle-related illness - it has a genetic component and it's specific cause is unknown. I'll likely continue to be able to obtain sufficient insurance because I'm a skilled professional in a field that currently offers it as a matter of course.
But for my lawyer brother-in-law with that same condition that works at a small law firm there is no practical route to obtaining medical insurance because of his pre-existing condition. If he has any major complications he'll be more then wiped out. Not because he needs cutting edge experimental treatment, but because even basic surgery is prohibitively expensive without the insurance that he is unable to purchase.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: We already see this in areas that are extensively controlled, such as organ transplants. Right?
So, I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes whether the decision is made by the government, or a private company empowered by the government to make that decision.
I mean, the entire situation is still created by intense government intervention and regulation. How many companies are allowed by the government to manage organ donations? And, more controversially, how many companies are allowed by the government to manage organ sales?
If the answer to either of those questions is a finite number, then at the end of the day the government is still dictating the parameters that determine who gets a transplant or not. Right? Or is that still wrong? (If so, I'm pretty sure you could tell me it's wrong without caps-lock, too, but, that's your call.)
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Whereas government (see organ transplants) can say "No, your odds of surviving even with this treatment is minimal and it would cost too much, and it could better help someone else." and then enforce this statement with coercion if necessary.
That is a GROSS misstatement of how the organ prioritization rules work. It is NOT a question of excess cost. It is a question of limited organ availability. The organization that makes those decisions has to allocate organs on the basis or urgency of need and likelihood of surviving. Relative cost is not the issue.
So, I said "No, your odds of surviving even with this treatment is minimal and it would cost too much, and it could better help someone else."
And I acknowledge that this is not perfectly representative of the organ situation. Sorry for misrepresenting that! I dunno if it was grossly, though.
It seems to me that if you take out "and it would cost too much" it's still fundamentally a situation where the government (or an organization empowered by the government) is dictating options via coercion.
Even if we take out the cost issue, I generally still think it's bad when the government dictates that people don't have the liberty to pursue whatever medical treatment they deem necessary, which is the underlying fear I was referring to.
Whether that treatment is some hogwash homeopathic remedy, or a toxic experimental drug, or anything in between, is largely irrelevant to me. I still think that people should be allowed to pursue those options. The government already extensively limits the treatments we're allowed to undergo. Concentrating even more power over medical decisions in its hands seems like a bad idea.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The government having the ability to deny care is a separate issue from the government providing all/most care. One doesn't imply the other. The government can say that *they* won't cover a particular treatment, but if the private market wants to provide it it would take a separate government action to further say that no one else can provide the same treatment.
If I tell my daughter I'm not going to buy her Slurpee, that's not the same as saying that she can't get a Slurpee. I'm just not willing to pay for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, how do you think that decisions about how scarce organs are allotted should be made. Highest bidder?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If the answer to either of those questions is a finite number, then at the end of the day the government is still dictating the parameters that determine who gets a transplant or not. Right? Or is that still wrong? (If so, I'm pretty sure you could tell me it's wrong without caps-lock, too, but, that's your call.)
Since we're looking so far down the road here that indirect government oversight equates to government mandating how many organs may be donated, allow me to apply that style of reasoning to organ donation absent any of that: why do you appear to be suggesting that people should be considered property, Dan? Because if one can pay for an organ transplant entirely on their own without oversight, they are buying human organs. Humans are made up of our various organs. Something that can be bought and sold is generally considered property. Shall we human beings be property, then? Can we sell options to buy our organs to the highest bidder? Let's strip the brakes right off this capitalism schtick we got goin' with our occasional government involvement and get right down to the paradise of free enterprise!
Sidenote: why is it 'the government' controlling something when it's a bad thing that shouldn't be done, but 'the people' when it's a good thing that should be done?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh (and Kate), I didn't say anything about hating the status quo of organ donations and wanting to change it. You should know by now that, while I may argue for what I see as improvements to the traditional status quo, overall I think most traditions do alright, which is why they exist.
All I did here was contend that there is a substantial level of government oversight where organ transplants are concerned (this was just a buffer to a totally different observation, recall).
Whether government employees are the ones making the judgment calls or not, the government is still setting the guidelines for those judgment calls. So far, I still stand by that, though if Rivka wants to yell at me some more and provide more links that prove me even wrong-er, that's cool too.
Rakeesh: Your snark is appreciated, as always. I don't know that I'd characterize our current situation as "occasional" government involvement, but that's a debatable point.
I'll assume your sidenote isn't directed at me, because I can't conceive of how it could be. I'm not sure who it's directed at! I mean, constitutionally speaking, "the people" pretty clearly does not refer to "the government," or things like the first amendment sure do lose a lot of their punch!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The government having the ability to deny care is a separate issue from the government providing all/most care. One doesn't imply the other. The government can say that *they* won't cover a particular treatment, but if the private market wants to provide it it would take a separate government action to further say that no one else can provide the same treatment.
If I tell my daughter I'm not going to buy her Slurpee, that's not the same as saying that she can't get a Slurpee. I'm just not willing to pay for it.
Unless you own all the slurpee machines.
It seems like this tangent of the discussion is dependent on precisely how private the health care market remains. I'll certainly agree that the scenario I described isn't a given. Though I do think that concentrating more power in the government is generally a bad way to solve problems.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not all emphasis is yelling. But the repeated passive-aggressive slams in my direction do remind me why I usually refrain from responding to you in political discussions.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That makes me genuinely sad.
I guess I'm trained to see things like italics and asterisks as emphasis, and caps pretty much exclusively as yelling, so that was the way I interpreted it. I really respect your inputs, so I'm glad to find out that I was totally wrong on that front.
And I really did appreciate your correction, because I didn't know the details that you linked me to. And I really would welcome finding out that I'm also wrong about the level of government oversight in organ donation.
To the extent that I was passive aggressive (the only one I see that looks that way in hindsight was the comment about you yelling at me, but I'm probably missing the other ones), I apologize. It honestly wasn't done with conscious intent, but I definitely agree it reads that way. So, again, I apologize.
I like arguing, and there are some people on Hatrack who dish out a sufficient level of snark and sarcasm that I don't feel bad returning in kind, but it's not my intent to make anyone feel bad or attacked.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I was thinking about this on my way to get coffee a few minutes ago: Rakeesh, since I sort of hedged away from your accusations in my earlier post, i figured I should acknowledge that philosophically I do think that people's bodies should be considered their property, and they should be allowed to do with them as they see fit. It's why I'm in favor of legal drugs, and legal prostitution, and legal sale of your own organs.
The organs of the dead are a bit stickier (ew). If someone leaves instructions in their will (sell my heart to the highest bidder and give the proceeds to my kids), I'm okay with that. If they donate them to an organization, I'm okay with that too. If they leave no instructions, I guess their body should probably go to their next of kin the same way we handle their other property in lieu of a will.
But this is all just headspace theorizing. I'm in no way actually advocating that we push to pass these isolated issues into law today, and if someone else was, I'd want to look good and hard at why, because I'm not sure this is the best place to start scaling back government control. Seems like it's not really a pressing issue, so it's a weird place to start.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So highest bidder is about right, then. I've got to say that is pretty horrifying.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:So when we look at potential fiat-based solutions to social problems, that create additional tax and regulatory burdens against increasing the wealth of our civilization, I'm very wary.
I think that's a good way to slow down the progress that's going to solve the current problems of our day (and then give rise to the next set of better problems, obviously).
Dan, if you think wealth redistribution is likely to have a negative effect on the economy, does the same go for individual charity? If the American rich started voluntarily giving a larger portion of their income to the poor, having the same effect as a more robust welfare state but without the middle man, would that make us all worse off in the long run?
I agree that there are some good arguments against burdensome regulation, but we're not talking about that.
That's a really interesting question!
Overall, I think that yeah, people giving their money to charities, or churches, or their friends, or, hell, blowing it on yachts or similar, is all going to be less effective at accelerating overall wealth than if they were to, say, invest it.
That being said, I don't think it's a huge deal if they do so. And people can have legitimate reasons to want to help other people, and I have no desire to try and stop them.
I certainly don't advocate dictating that people spend their money on investments any more than I'd advocate any other dictates. In general, I'm against dictating the behavior of individuals.
As a philosophical principle, I think that failure to persuade someone that your idea is correct is a terrible reason to force them to comply with that idea. What if you're wrong, and they're right? Better not to force them at all, when possible.
As an aside, to give you a sense of my personal priorities, I'm much, much more interested in active efforts to reduce onerous and lopsided regulations than I am in active efforts to reduce taxation. Regulations create far more barriers of entry, which is a huge problem both for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Here's an example, using the health care issue. I haven't given it a great deal of thought yet, but I wonder if I'd actually prefer a bare-minimum sort of government-controlled tax-funded health insurance system (Single payer? Something put out to compete with existing plans, as opposed to replacing them entirely) instead of the mandate, because it would put less burden on businesses to allocate their resources towards health insurance programs. A greater general tax burden, perhaps, but less burden on businesses specifically.
In general, I have plenty of issues with the way health insurance seems to be structured, but those aren't terribly relevant because neither the mandate nor single payer nor the status quo really address those concerns.
[ March 23, 2012, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, I think you completely missed the point of my hypothetical. Nothing I said about Bob, Sue and Joe had anything to do with what they wanted out of life or what they considered important. They all basically want the same thing. The differences in their choices was not because they valued different things, it was because they were in different circumstances. The difference in their circumstances was completely the result of luck. Bob was lucky enough to be born to wealthy influential parents so he has a higher paying job and lots of money saved. He hasn't chosen not to have kids, he's just still young. Joe isn't in debt because he cares more about his children than Sue does. Almost any parent would spend everything they had to save the life of their sick child.
Freedom is meaningless unless you options and one of the main points I was trying to make with this hypothetical is that money is one of the most important factors that determines what options we have. For Sue, inheriting $100,000 made her free to do all kinds of things she couldn't have otherwise done, including gambling it all. Doubling the money by winning at roulette then gave her even more freedom.
Because Joe had the bad luck to have a sick kid, the money didn't bring him any new options. It may have saved his family from becoming homeless, but he could not have chosen to gamble the money if he'd wanted too. Parents have a legal obligation to pay their kids medical bills. The bill collectors would have been at his door demanding their cut before he could even cash the check.
For Bob, inheriting $100,000 dollars or loosing it gambling would make almost no difference in his freedom. The options open to a well connected young guy with 1 million in savings, and a high paying job just aren't going to be significantly different if he has 1.1 million in savings.
Because of that, good luck and bad luck have a multiplicative effect. Life is not like flipping a coin where the odds are the same regardless of what happened before. In life, good luck gives you new options in the next round. Bad luck takes options away.
In our society, financial resources (or the lack there of) make a huge difference in our individual freedom and its not a linear effect. For someone in real poverty, $100 dollars at the right time could be life changing. For someone like Mitt Romney, $10,000 is chump change. If increasing freedom is what you want, leveling the economic playing field is going to do a lot more for most people than anything else.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Because of that, good luck and bad luck have a multiplicative effect. Life is not like flipping a coin where the odds are the same regardless of what happened before. In life, good luck gives you new options in the next round. Bad luck takes options away.
Replace "luck" with "choices" and this statement is just as true.
For example, I think that choosing to have a child is one of, if not the, most monumental and life-changing decisions anyone can make. It can have wonderful or ruinous consequences, from any number of perspectives including financial.
I think only a tiny minority of people who have kids actually give this decision the gravity it deserves. I think lots of people have kids without considering the extent to which doing so is absolutely going to alter their ability to realize their other ambitions. Which means that choice is making it exponentially harder for them to achieve other goals they supposedly have.
This is an example of poor decision-making. Such people should probably hold off having kids, or adjust their other goals.
That's just one example, but it's a big one because so many people make terrible choices by their own lights,. By their stated preferences (say, having a successful career, or saving up lots of money) they're making a decision that drastically increases the likelihood that they will not be successful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was thinking about this on my way to get coffee a few minutes ago: Rakeesh, since I sort of hedged away from your accusations in my earlier post, i figured I should acknowledge that philosophically I do think that people's bodies should be considered their property, and they should be allowed to do with them as they see fit. It's why I'm in favor of legal drugs, and legal prostitution, and legal sale of your own organs.
Ok, that's fine. My point is that you looked at Rivka's remarks about how the organization and methods for organ transplants aren't, actually, government-run except *maybe* in the most indirect, paces removed kind of way. Seeing that, you sum it all up: well, that's government control!
Alright, that's fine too. But if you're going to look that far down the (hypothetical, not at all a given) road in that case, then you cannot reasonably dismiss people when they say that your suggestion would ultimately amount to people having kids to sell organs, pressure people into selling them, importing illegal immigrants to do so, offering reduced sentences to felons for sale of organs, requiring the yielding up of organs as punishment, so on and so on and so on.
I suspect you'd respond a bit unfavorably to that sort of approach, but when it ties into your particular economic outlook it's appropriate, or so it seems. Not surprising someone would add emphasis given that response.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I worked for a company where the research in one department showed that the company was massively screwed and could never sell the product they were trying to and since this was a small company, they only had one project. At this point, the CEO took his golden parachute and bailed. New CEO came in, cancelled everyone's promised raise, gave himself a big one, read the report and then flat out lied to everyone about what was in it. He said results were the opposite and everything was going good and on the way to production. Stocks shot up, he sold all his and made lots of money. Eventually the lies were revealed, the company was sued for fraud and went bankrupt. The CEO, on top of all the money he had made then went on to be CEO of another company. The scientists meanwhile were laid off with no benefits and now have this company which is known for scientific dishonesty on their resumes that can be a black mark on them (even though it is pretty clear that they never did anything wrong). So, the first CEO got all the info and chose to bail with a large amount of money. The second CEO chose to lie and then ended with lots and lots of money and good jobs. The scientists worked a lot of nights overtime and tried really hard to make this product worked and they end with nothing. On the choice model, it seems like only the CEOs had access to all the information to make the best choices. Also, the choice that was rewarded the greatest was not hard work, job production, skill, etc- it was ability to lie convincingly. I think we need to seriously look at our system when fraud is the best way to success. And the thing is, I don't for a moment believe this was just the company I worked for. From the papers, it seems like it is a general truth- lack of ethics is the best way to succeed in our society. We are going out of our way to justify why Bob made the wrong decision so he should starve, but it seems like we also need to look at how it is justifiable that the CEOs get to make tons of money by lying and cheating? How is that CEOs success fair or acceptable in our world?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those scientists and other employees should've done more research and realized the product wouldn't work, and should also have been able to gauge the trustworthiness of their CEOs. Sorry, not 'should've' but 'could have', somehow. If they had gone in skeptical and mistrustful of their CEO, been able to conceal that attitude when being hired, and had excellent research and investigative skills, they could have avoided that outcome. Therefore this is not exactly something that happened to them!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Those scientists and other employees should've done more research and realized the product wouldn't work, and should also have been able to gauge the trustworthiness of their CEOs. Sorry, not 'should've' but 'could have', somehow. If they had gone in skeptical and mistrustful of their CEO, been able to conceal that attitude when being hired, and had excellent research and investigative skills, they could have avoided that outcome. Therefore this is not exactly something that happened to them!
I really can't tell whether that is hyperbolic sarcasm for effect or whether you actually mean this.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Sarcasm most certainly.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Cool. It did seem out of character, but I have not slept well and just couldn't tell. My brain is broken. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Normally it would be, but this time it's straight from the heart. I'm not fond of scientists, researchers, or their departments (don't even get me started on scholarette, now there's a derail!), and people who don't live their lives as though they were in an economic death match arena just grind my gears!
So in other words, sincere!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, don't worry about it, Olivet, Rakeesh is just having a bit of fun at my expense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's the exclamation point at the end that clinches it;)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Replace "luck" with "choices" and this statement is just as true.
If your choice involves a flip of a coin, choice and luck boil down to exactly the same thing. The odds are the same for the person who gets to choose heads or tails and the one who doesn't.
quote:If they'd played poker or some other largely skill based game, they would "deserve" whatever they won or lost, because they chose to put their money on the line in a game of skill.
It's almost hilariously funny that you point to poker as an example of a largely skill based game. Chess is a game of skill. Poker is a game of luck in which a very high level of skill can slightly improve your odds of winning. In any individual game, skill makes almost no difference, you have to play tens of thousands of games in order for the skill to matter as much as luck. One study of online gambling statistics found that the best professional poker players have to play 35,540 hands before skill overcomes luck. Skill only matters in poker if you play thousands of games and to do that you need more than just skill, you need a bankroll big enough to last through a loosing streak of tens of thousands of games and you need a pool of less skilled players who are willing and able to play that many times.
Even in a game like basketball, where skill makes a far far bigger difference than in poker, in any single game luck is as important as skill. Over a season of dozens of games, the more skilled team is going to have a better record but the fewer games you play the more luck will matter. In real life, people don't get tens of thousands of second chances. Life has a lot more in common with a single elimination tournament than regular season play. No matter how skilled you are, if you have bad luck in round one, you don't get to play in round two.
[ March 25, 2012, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mahjong is a better example of a skill based game, or karuta (100 Poems). Poker is mostly luck and heavily relies much more on its metagame.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Mahjong is a better example of a skill based game, or karuta (100 Poems). Poker is mostly luck and heavily relies much more on its metagame.
If by metagame you mean playing the players and not the cards, you're making a distinction without a difference. That's an integral part to poker.
And if you think it's mostly luck, you must not be very good at it. There's a reason some people win consistently at poker and that professional players are rich off their winnings, and it's not because they are eternally lucky.
And don't you draw tiles in mahjong?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Mahjong is a better example of a skill based game, or karuta (100 Poems). Poker is mostly luck and heavily relies much more on its metagame.
I must be the luckiest person in the world since I've won or been on the final table of 5 of the last 6 tournaments I've played in.
As lyrhawn says, people who think poker is luck based don't understand how poker actually works. There's an element of luck in it the way there is an element of luck in any game that is not strictly turn-based. Poker has an interesting evolution from the opening rounds to the middle and end-games, and even very skilled players can lose very suddenly and very dramatically. Also, an amateur can progress a significant distance based on one or two fortuitous hands, so luck is most definitely a factor. That doesn't mean it's mostly luck. It's not. I've started off games where an inexperienced player has tripled-up almost immediately based on a fairly wild hand. It happens. That person is almost invariably carved up by more skilled players. I've had to excuse myself from returning to friendly poker games because winning was too easy, and I didn't want to make enemies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Mahjong is a better example of a skill based game, or karuta (100 Poems). Poker is mostly luck and heavily relies much more on its metagame.
If by metagame you mean playing the players and not the cards, you're making a distinction without a difference. That's an integral part to poker.
And if you think it's mostly luck, you must not be very good at it. There's a reason some people win consistently at poker and that professional players are rich off their winnings, and it's not because they are eternally lucky.
And don't you draw tiles in mahjong?
I think its mostly luck based on studies of the game. As I noted before, professional players don't win consistently. They win only very slightly more often than they loose so that over the long run, they make money. But "over the long run" means tens of thousands of games.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That hasn't been my experience.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Pesky math It's amazing (and kind of awesome) how things fall statistically once you have enough data to munge. It can be kind of depressing as well.
I was reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, and the first few chapters are all about how everyone in Canada thinks their hockey system is a meritocracy, but statistically more professional players are born in the first three months of the year than in all of the other months combined. This is because of the advantage developmentally that they have over the other kids when they start in the kiddie leagues.
Then he went on to show that kids who repeat kindergarten or start school later/as the older ones in their grade are often at an extreme scholarly advantage that follows them all the way to college. That's when I put the book down and went off to have a good cry for letting my in-laws pressure me into sending my oldest to first grade as among the youngest in the class when I could have easily taken him from a year of private kindergarten to a year of public school kindergarten with no social stigma at all. (While he's been certified gifted and all that, what has stuck with him is the emotional distaste for school stemming from those early experiences. He's becoming a right impressive slacker/elitist. *sigh*)
Circumstances have a LOT to do with outcomes. Every awesome thing that has ever happened in my life has been a confluence of being in the right place at the right time with the right tools to appreciate/take advantage of it. It's not all one or the other.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Hold 'em is surrounded by luck but driven by betting and bluffing strategies. Its not like roulette, or even blackjack, where you are facing a static set of probabilities. You can have short term wins and losses that are purely good or bad luck, but professional players don't have good careers simply because they've figured out how to be a "bit luckier".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: For instance, one experiment involved a set of stories read by test subjects. They describe a normal social encounter. In the control group, the social encounter ends naturally and the group is asked to talk about the people involved; their conduct and their decision making.
Then a second group reads the same story, but in this story, the social encounter ends with a rape. In this group, the responses to the same questions show the victim of the attack derogated by the readers.
I spent a lot more time on this analysis in the last post, but I'm too burnt out to try and recreate it in full. Here's my best attempt:
I don't know much about the experiment in question, so if my theorizing below is wrong, that's fair.
Studies and experiments don't generally provide explanations for human behavior, they provide raw data. Trying to create explanations about that data is where psychologists often go wrong.
You don't explain how the victim was derogated by the readers. In this case, while there are absolutely awful misogynistic people who will say the woman was "asking for it" or some similar garbage, I'm going to set that aside for now. If they were instead pointing out behaviors the victim engaged in that could have made her more vulnerable (e.g. leaving a drink unattended) then I don't necessarily think this illustrates the just-world perception you think it does.
Their observations after-the-fact are going to be influenced by the most important events in the story. When there is no rape, the priority of observations will be very different than when there is a rape. An unattended drink, for example, is normally totally unremarkable. But if there was a date rape, suddenly it's quite relevant and worth mentioning.
I'm not interested in getting into most of this, but this struck me as a very odd dismissal of the just world studies.
To clarify, just world studies have shown that people will attribute negative moral characteristics both related and unrelated to the situation described to those whom they witness bad things happening to. This tendency correlates with self report and other measures of belief in the just world hypothesis.
As for:
quote:Studies and experiments don't generally provide explanations for human behavior, they provide raw data. Trying to create explanations about that data is where psychologists often go wrong.
I'm not sure what the point is here. You're describing an aspect of the scientific process and then...using it to say that psychology is invalid for some reason. I don't follow the logic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, maybe I want to get involved a little bit more.
One thing we know as a pretty rock solid established fact is that Americans are very bad at determining the effect situation plays on people. This manifests in a bunch of different ways. One of the biggest has been codified as the Fundamental Attribute Error. This is the blanket term for people neglecting situational influences on behavior in favor of dispositional ones. An extreme, though still common, example of this is showing people a subject forced to write an essay about something. People with high FAE will think that this person must believe in the thing he was writing about, at least somewhat.
When evaluating their own behavior, average, non-depressed Americans will overestimate the role their choices played in their successes and underestimate the role they play in their failures. They will also assume that they have a lot more personal control over situations than they actually do. A classic demonstration of this is to give people a button to push that does absolutely nothing and give them some sort of output. They will come to believe that they have control over that output through the button and will ignore other factors that actually affect the output in favor of positive actions they take. This effect is especially pronounced when they're winning money as part of the experiment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And since I guess I am doing this...
We're in a very different environment in terms of economic expansion than we've ever been before. Past expansion did a very good job of advancing society, in large part because it expanded leisure time by increasing productivity and getting rid of of lot of the annoying things you used to have to do. There were a lot less maintenance activities necessary. Also, in became much easier to sell in other markets and do a bunch of other things that basically resulted in more people being put to productive work. Society advanced because more and more people had jobs and these jobs allowed them to have a relatively secure living.
We hit an inflection point when production came to consistently far exceed demand, but we've dealt with that in a lot of ways, largely by manufacturing demand. However, this still represented a break from classical theories of capitalism.
Currently, we're seeing forms of economic expansion coming without job growth or often with corresponding job shrinking. This has been offset a great deal by globalization providing us with a much larger pool of consumers, but the problem remains that a lot of expansion now comes at the cost of jobs.
As a personal example, I spent a bit of time as an IT consultant and I'd estimate that I cost somewhere in the lost 100s of people their jobs. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was developing systems that replicated what people were doing and that would do this faster, better, and cheaper. I also made comparative information much more easily available and one of the projects I worked on was focused on leveraging this information to squeeze middle men suppliers so that they would give better prices to large companies.
Manufacturing is another big area for this. Advances in automation and computing have cut people needed to manufacture things drastically. With the advent of 3-d printing and fabrication, we're looking at another exponential decrease in the need for human labor.
The issues here could fill a book. Heck, they've already filled dozens of books on this subject. But now I'm going to bed.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Hold 'em is surrounded by luck but driven by betting and bluffing strategies. Its not like roulette, or even blackjack, where you are facing a static set of probabilities. You can have short term wins and losses that are purely good or bad luck, but professional players don't have good careers simply because they've figured out how to be a "bit luckier".
Bill Gates was one of a tiny, tiny percentage of middle school students in the late 60s that had actual computer access. Here's a quote from wikipedia--
"At 13 he enrolled in the Lakeside School, an exclusive preparatory school.[20] When he was in the eighth grade, the Mothers Club at the school used proceeds from Lakeside School's rummage sale to buy a Teletype Model 33 ASR terminal and a block of computer time on a General Electric (GE) computer for the school's students.[21] Gates took an interest in programming the GE system in BASIC, and was excused from math classes to pursue his interest. He wrote his first computer program on this machine: an implementation of tic-tac-toe that allowed users to play games against the computer. Gates was fascinated by the machine and how it would always execute software code perfectly. When he reflected back on that moment, he said, "There was just something neat about the machine."[22] After the Mothers Club donation was exhausted, he and other students sought time on systems including DEC PDP minicomputers. One of these systems was a PDP-10 belonging to Computer Center Corporation (CCC), which banned four Lakeside students—Gates, Paul Allen, Ric Weiland, and Kent Evans—for the summer after it caught them exploiting bugs in the operating system to obtain free computer time.[23] At the end of the ban, the four students offered to find bugs in CCC's software in exchange for computer time. Rather than use the system via Teletype, Gates went to CCC's offices and studied source code for various programs that ran on the system, including programs in FORTRAN, LISP, and machine language. The arrangement with CCC continued until 1970, when the company went out of business. The following year, Information Sciences, Inc. hired the four Lakeside students to write a payroll program in COBOL, providing them computer time and royalties. "
Are you somehow of the opinion that luck isn't a large part of the fact that he is the founder and CEO of the world's largest software company?
The odds (since you want to talk about gambling) are against a student from a poor school in Appalachia founding a Microsoft, wouldn't you agree?
And yet people from Appalachia, rural Mississippi, etc. BUY Microsoft products, don't they? Their tax money is used to purchase MS Office for use at government agencies, as well.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote: Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Are you somehow of the opinion that luck isn't a large part of the fact that he is the founder and CEO of the world's largest software company?
No, I'm of the opinion that the best poker players employ a style of play that leads to success more consistently than luck would allow.
Posted by I Used to Be a Drummer (Member # 12787) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote: Originally posted by I Used to Be a Drummer: Are you somehow of the opinion that luck isn't a large part of the fact that he is the founder and CEO of the world's largest software company?
No, I'm of the opinion that the best poker players employ a style of play that leads to success more consistently than luck would allow.
Why are you mentioning poker, if you're not trying to relate it to the current topic?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it is relevant to one of the discussions going on right now.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I was responding to earlier posts about the degree to which luck affects poker outcomes. Threads meander.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
The thing is, the biggest contributing factor to this advancement, to poverty today being so much better than poverty of the past, is that our whole society is vastly wealthier than 100 years ago. Even at the lowest echelons. And I think that going forward, overall wealth and innovation will continue to be the biggest driving force in improving everyone's life.
So when we look at potential fiat-based solutions to social problems, that create additional tax and regulatory burdens against increasing the wealth of our civilization, I'm very wary.
I think that's a good way to slow down the progress that's going to solve the current problems of our day (and then give rise to the next set of better problems, obviously).
Sorry if you have already addressed this somewhere, but: You are only half right. What you are missing is that transferring money from rich to poor is one of the primary reasons why America is rich, and not a 3rd world country.
For example: public education. I think we can all agree, that public education has provided USA better workers, better innovators, and overall better economy?
Imagine if there wouldn't have been a tax burden on Americans which forced them to finance public schooling. America today would most likely be considered a 3rd world country. It would still face many of the same problems it faced 100 years ago.
Health care is really just an extension of that. People work better when they are healthy instead of sick. They work better when they are alive instead of dead.
I agree with you that internet will become one of the basic rights for Americans at some point. But it's a good thing, because it makes the country more competitive, and more wealthy in the long run. A supportive social infrastructure financed with tax money is a central reason why advanced and rich countries are advanced and rich.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: So when we look at potential fiat-based solutions to social problems, that create additional tax and regulatory burdens against increasing the wealth of our civilization, I'm very wary.
Because you don't understand the ultimate effects of those solutions. At their most effective, government regulations and tax burdens discourage the free attraction of wealth to additional wealth, and retard the advance of wealth condensation.
As an example: financial regulations and taxation (again, I'm talking non-real world simplicity), should be designed to make it difficult to, say, drop a million dollars into an investment account, and see that money grow faster than it would in an ordinary savings account. The reason is that, in a system where a person with a million dollars can attract additional wealth at a higher annualized rate than someone with 1000, the ultimate effect will be for the rich to become increasingly rich. This is where higher marginal tax rates, higher capital gains taxes, and etc come in.
Why should the rich not get richer? Well, the rich *should* get richer. In a perfect system, the rich earn their additional money by being innovative and hard working and savvy in their investments. However, if you take the financial system as an aggregate, and allow it to grow *faster* than the rest of the economy, bad things start happening. The poor don't get poorer right away, but their purchasing power starts to decline. Even if inflation stays low, enhancements in technology and other consumer goods start to price larger and larger numbers of people out of the middle of the consumer market. The economy begins to rely more on larger spenders, or as happened in the last decade, on lower and middle-income consumer debt, to finance the rising costs of living and to balance purchasing power.
This is a key thing: the general technology level and living standard continue to rise, but this is built not on a corresponding growth in actual wealth. People live better lives, but their lives come increasingly at the cost of their social, financial and political mobility. You have people who have undeniably *more* than the previous generation, but are correspondingly less free.
Part of the issue you have, I think, is that you might compare living standards from, say, 2010, and 1970. You might say: in 1970, a middle income family had one car, no college education, and no computers of any kind. A family of the same class today has two cars, cell phones, computers, ipads, and the rest of it. But here's the thing: the family of 2010 has more debt than they will ever be able to pay back in their lives. Now, if you were to compare a family of 1930 and 1970, the family of 1970 was much better off on living standards, *and* was *more* socially and economically mobile. So today, our living standards increase, but our mobility and our relative economic power are decreasing.
And there are a million and one reasons why. A consumer sector built on hidden taxes for the poor: services from communication, to banking, that cost more over time if you have less to invest in them (and this is driven by the financial system wanting more ready cash to invest in wealth accumulation... if you can spot the connection). A public sector that operates the same way: parking and traffic fines, and a host of other local regulations that are no longer strictly punitive, but become sources of city and county income, and disproportionately effect the poor.
Now, the problem I see with a conservative view of this, again, is that it attaches yourself to the figures, and particularly, the *anecdotal* information about living standards without paying head to these trends of purchasing power parity and socio-economic mobility. Conservatives are often not willing to consider that a class of people can be termed "worse off" if their situation is only declining *relative* to that of society as a whole. If there is a wider income gap, but incomes are still rising, conservatives would like to believe that this is somehow because America is just plain more wealthy. Well, wealth overall *does* increase, but relative wealth increasing, and at the rate that it is increasing, is damaging to that growth. And we've seen the effects in recent years. Exhausted by a decade of increasing consumer debt, the middle class, the consumers most of the growth in our economy is based on, stopped consuming, and our economy contracted- threatening our political and economic stability as a nation. That happened because wealth was accumulating too fast at the top. You have to view the growth of an economy the way you do any organic entity: it has to grow rationally and more or less symmetrically. If it doesn't, there may be something wrong.
ETA: As an aside about the "poor tax" nature of consumer technology and banking, I was largely unaware of how pervasive this was until I moved to another country. To imagine that something like a pay-as-you-go mobile plan would be priced corresponding more or less *exactly* to the level of service provided was astounding to me. That contract plans offered *no* significant benefits beyond convenience? Incredible. Or the idea that the consumers own *local* branch of a bank is in charge of issuing credit to its customers and that these banks, even nationwide organizations, do not offer credit lines to their customers that exceed their customer's realistic ability to pay for their purchases, also amazed me. And there are no overdraft fees, because there are no overdrafts. Why does that shock me? Who invented overdrafts anyway? How does that concept even make sense?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That hasn't been my experience.
How many games have you played and at what level?
Poker is definitely not strictly a game of luck, it involves a mixture of luck and skill. This is nothing unique to poker. Almost all popular games involve a mix of luck and skill including everything from basketball to monopoly. The question is whether poker is "mostly luck" or "mostly skill" and that's not a simple question to answer. First we need to define what is meant by "mostly skill". If there is any skill involved at all, then if you play enough games the most skilled player will win more games. For a simple two player game, if its 100% luck then if two people play against each other an infinite number of times, each player will win 50% of the time. If its 100% skill, then the best player will win every game. So one reasonable way to define the percent skill involved in a mixed game would be (P-50)*2, where P is percent of the time that the more skilled player will win. If the better player wins 75% of the time, the game is 50% skill and 50% luck.
Of course two people are never going to play each other an infinite number of times, so another way of looking at this would be to determine the number of times the two players would have to play in order for there to be a 95% chance that the better player will win the majority of the games. In a best 9 series for a game that is 50% skill, the better player will win 95% of the time. To have a 95% chance of winning a best of 3 series, the game has to be 72.8% skill. The number of times you need to play for there to be a 95% probability of the better player winning is called the "critical repetition frequency" (CRF). A bigger CRF indicates the game involves more luck. For a game that's 50% skill, the CRF is 9. For a game that's 20% skill the CRF is 67. For a game that's 10% skill the CRF is 287. People who have carefully studied the statistics of online poker games have found that the CRF for professional online poker players is ~35,000. So for a professional online poker player winning a single game is about 0.9% skill and 99.1% luck.
The CRF suggests there is another way that we might choose to define whether or not poker is "mostly luck" or "mostly chance". If you win one game, its almost entirely luck for everyone. If you come out ahead after a very large number of games, skill is more likely to be a factor. If you play more than your CRF, then 95% of the time winning is an indication of superior skill. If you play less than your CRF, then luck is going to be a bigger factor. Your CRF is a function of both your skill and the skill of your competition. If you have lower than average skill, the more games you play the greater your chances are of loosing money. You should quit while you are ahead. If you have greater than average skill, the more you play the greater your chances are of winning. You should always keep playing whether you are ahead or behind.
But it gets even more complicated because the skill factor in that equation isn't just a function of the game and your own skill level, it's relative to the skill of other players. Kobe's chances of winning a single game of horse with me are very likely more than 99.9999%. In even a single game of horse between me and Kobe, the result is going to be almost entirely skill. But if Kobe and Lebron were to play a single game of horse, you might as well be flipping a coin. The outcome is going to be almost entirely luck.
Saying that the outcome of a basketball game between two equally matched teams is mostly luck, is not the same as saying that skill doesn't matter in basketball. You really need to look at the difference between the least skilled players and the most skilled players. If you do that in a high skill game like basketball, it's clear that basketball is mostly a game of skill. The average recreational league team has almost no chance of beating a professional team in even one game.
But that just isn't true for poker. If we look at only a single hand of poker, a novice player has a nearly even chance of winning against a professional player. That isn't really an accurate way to assess the importance of skill in poker because in poker its not about the number of hands you win and loose, its about the amount of money you win and loose. The most important difference between good players and bad players is that good players loose less money on average when they loose a hand. Nonetheless if you look at large numbers of games between players of different levels, you can get an idea of how much difference skill makes between the best and worst players and the studies of online game statistics indicate that skill is worth at most about 10%. If you pit the best professional online players against the worst online players, they have to play around 300 games for the best player to have a 95% chances of winning overall.
Of course there is a sampling bias in online games. The very worst players who might show up to an occasional penny ante poker night with friends don't make up a significant fraction of online poker players. The data suggests that skill in poker is something that plateaus pretty quickly, so the difference in skill between a total novice and a good recreational player is a lot more than the difference between a good recreational player and a top level professional. So in a friendly game of 25 hands of penny ante poker with a mix of good recreational players and novices, you'd expected the best players to win about 70% of the time. That statistic will be nearly identical if the best players are top professionals or just a pretty good recreational players. For most people who play recreationally, its easy to get the impression that skill is much more important than statistics show.
If you up the stakes, the worst players drop out. The difference in skill for the remaining players will be a lot smaller, so you will have to play a lot more games before skill will be more important than luck. That ads another factor to winning over the long term. In order for your skill level to matter you have to keep playing for a very large number of games. If you run out of money in a loosing streak, you can't keep playing. That means that to beat the odds at a high level game, you need both high skill and a large bank roll. I you start out with very little cash, your odds of winning lots of money are going to be small even if you are very skilled. The higher the level of the game, the less difference there will be between you and the competition which means that the chances of a long loosing streak are higher -- that means the ratio between your typical bet and your cash reserve has to be a higher.
This is why few people are able to succeed as professional poker players for very long. Most people (and almost all gamblers), tend to be too optimistic. They underestimate the amount they need to keep in reserve to survive a loosing streak. So when that loosing streak comes (which it always will if they play enough), they can't continue to keep playing. Even if you are extremely prudent, unless you have an infinite bankroll, you will eventually loose it all. The game isn't symmetric. Loosing one dollar costs both a dollar and a future opportunity to bet that dollar. A streak of bad luck means you don't have as much to wager in future bets. In a sense when you loose you loose twice -- you loose both money and future options.
[ March 26, 2012, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Rabbit, I feel like a dick pointing this out, but when you don't win you lose. 'Loose' is the adjective describing pants that keep falling down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Are you defining a game as a hand? Or as a series of hands?
And what is your reasoning for doing so one way or the other?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Rabbit, I feel like a dick pointing this out, but when you don't win you lose. 'Loose' is the adjective describing pants that keep falling down.
That's my signature mistake.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Are you defining a game as a hand? Or as a series of hands?
And what is your reasoning for doing so one way or the other?
It would be possible to define it either way. I defined a game as a hand because that is the way it was defined in the research studies I took the numbers from.
If the outcome of each hand in a series is independent of the outcome of the previous hands, the two approaches will yield the same result. If you need to play 35,000 hands for skill to dominate over luck, then you'd need to play 3500 games of 10 hands each for skill to dominate over luck. In a friendly low stakes game of low skill players, probably not a good assumption that the hands are independent since winning or loosing one hand (or several hands in a row) is likely to influence how people play. For a highly skilled player with a large reserve of cash, it would be much more accurate to assume that the results of each hand will be independent.
Either way, it does not change the basic conclusion that poker is mostly a game of chance. As with any game that is a mixture of skill and chance, skill will dominate if you repeat it a large enough number of times (the critical repetition frequency).
If a game is mostly skill (>50%), the CRF will be under about 9. If a game is mostly luck, the CRF will be larger. For poker, the CRF ranges from hundreds to hundreds of thousands depending on the level of the game.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As with any game that is a mixture of skill and chance, skill will dominate if you repeat it a large enough number of times (the critical repetition frequency).
You basically said this a few times in earlier posts, but I'm going to reiterate it here:
The extent to which luck is the deciding factor is inversely proportional to the disparity in skill between the players. A game between two equally skilled people may be decided more by luck than by skill. A game between a highly skilled player and a new player will be much more likely to be determined by skill than luck.
I'm not really talking about poker anymore, by the way. Applied relatively (as in, you look at comparisons within the same game) this holds true pretty much regardless of the "CRF" of any given game.
This is actually obvious from a common-sense perspective to anyone who has spent time trying to improve at a game, since a huge part of learning any game is figuring out how luck effects the game, and learning how to mitigate bad luck and always be in a position to capitalize on good luck.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Are you defining a game as a hand? Or as a series of hands?
And what is your reasoning for doing so one way or the other?
It would be possible to define it either way. I defined a game as a hand because that is the way it was defined in the research studies I took the numbers from.
If the outcome of each hand in a series is independent of the outcome of the previous hands, the two approaches will yield the same result. If you need to play 35,000 hands for skill to dominate over luck, then you'd need to play 3500 games of 10 hands each for skill to dominate over luck. In a friendly low stakes game of low skill players, probably not a good assumption that the hands are independent since winning or loosing one hand (or several hands in a row) is likely to influence how people play. For a highly skilled player with a large reserve of cash, it would be much more accurate to assume that the results of each hand will be independent.
Either way, it does not change the basic conclusion that poker is mostly a game of chance. As with any game that is a mixture of skill and chance, skill will dominate if you repeat it a large enough number of times (the critical repetition frequency).
If a game is mostly skill (>50%), the CRF will be under about 9. If a game is mostly luck, the CRF will be larger. For poker, the CRF ranges from hundreds to hundreds of thousands depending on the level of the game.
I've played thousands of hands. The numbers actually build up very fast. I used to play in a weekly low-stakes game that was probably 100 hands a night, but I also played in a lot of poker rooms as well. My brother has played well over 35,000 hands in his day, and I know he's come out way ahead in the grand scheme of things. I think you'd be surprised at how short a time you can reach into the thousands of hands. A hand can literally last only seconds.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If I learned anything from Mel Gibson it's that the most important element to playing poker is actually having psychic abilities.
And no matter the stakes or how bad the odds are, if you have part of a royal flush you should always go all-in, because not getting a royal flush would be anticlimactic and is therefore unlikely.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mahjong is a game involving skill because of its complexity. You draw from a "wall" a number of tiles yes, but you don't have it limited to a single discard/redraw (variations aside) but are continuously discarding and drawing tiles over dozens of turns until you assemble a winning hand. Winning a hand doesn't win you money, but win you points in which money is proportionally doled out (if its a betting game, otherwise its 1st to 4th place). So each hand has a worth to it, so skill comes into play in how and what kind of hands you assemble, cheaper faster hands can let you win a bad round early; intermediate hands aren't quite more or less valuable but because of how riichi works whereas you "warn" the other players you only have 1 tile remaining to "win" lets you win with a greater variety of possible hands rather than a set hand (because declaring riichi satisfies the minimum winning prerequisite of 1 yaku). While obviously the most difficult and rare hands are worth the most points; but there's extremely complex variety in how you can arrange a hand of a setting pattern to increase your point game.
Since you have points you need to thus judge for example if its worth winning with a cheap hand because sometimes winning doesn't give you enough points to get into first place. Also depending on how you win, (I'm presuming first place because the rules resemble Calvin Ball at times) and you become the "dealer" it also increases complexity and how points are dolled out and confers certain advantages.
Additionally at least with riichi rules you discard your tiles into a neat pool in front of you in turn order, this makes it so that the other players can keep track of your discards and try to surmise what kind of hand your going for, and you can surmise theirs vice versa you can also discard "dummy" tiles and try to hide and camouflage your strategy.
The vastly greater complexity minimizes how much of a factor "luck" is to a given game. As well as the much greater amount of control the player has in how they compose their hands in a given game, sometimes able to completely discard your ongoing hand and switch to an entirely different hand midgame. As as I understand it you don't have this much time, 30 to 40 odd turns in which to come up with a hand. You have 2-3 I think.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Poker is not about the process of composing a hand, it's about representing and betting on a hand as it unfolds. In Hold 'em, you have 4 betting rounds. Read up on it, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I've played thousands of hands. The numbers actually build up very fast. I used to play in a weekly low-stakes game that was probably 100 hands a night, but I also played in a lot of poker rooms as well. My brother has played well over 35,000 hands in his day, and I know he's come out way ahead in the grand scheme of things. I think you'd be surprised at how short a time you can reach into the thousands of hands. A hand can literally last only seconds.
My numbers come from detailed studies of online poker games which included over 5 million players and hundreds of millions of hands. I would in fact be highly surprised if your personal experience proves to be a more accurate assessment of poker than academic studies of millions of players. The ultimate conclusion is the same whether you look at a single hand or a game involving dozens of hands. The researchers have found that the vast majority of players do not play enough hands to make skill the predominant factor.
It isn't possible to get that kind of data from real life low stakes games. It would not surprise me if the CRF for real life low stakes games was considerably lower than for online games because of the social aspects, but I'd also expect that the typical real life low stakes player plays a lot fewer hands than the typical online player. I'd be rather surprised if the overall conclusion were any different. The overwhelming a majority of players do not play enough hands for skill to be more important than luck.
If you play enough poker, skill is going to be more important than luck, that will be true whenever any skill whatsoever is involved. The fact that net poker winning are the result of skill for a very small fraction of people who play an unusually large amount is not evidence that the game is "mostly skill". I suggested two ways we might define "mostly skill", the first was the importance of skill in winning a given hand -- that number is extremely low. The second was the number of hands a player would need to play for luck and skill to be equally important. I'll grant you that it isn't fair to look at the raw CRF number, you have to scale that by the number of hands a person would typically play over some time period. But even when you do that, the conclusion is the same. Poker is not "mostly skill" because for the overwhelming majority of players the luck factor is bigger than the skill factor.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rabbit, I don't know where to start with that.
I don't consider the stats relating to online poker to be at all relevant to the game as played in person. It's a completely different animal.
quote: In a friendly low stakes game of low skill players, probably not a good assumption that the hands are independent since winning or loosing one hand (or several hands in a row) is likely to influence how people play.
You are ignoring: chip strength, position, blind raising, and stake changes (such as different value freeze-out buys). Through each hand, the chip strength of each player changes. As players leave the game, the apportionment of the stake changes, as time passes, blinds are raised, affecting the state of chip strength and strengthening higher stacks. If there is a freeze-out round, the value of the chips on the table can be diluted by a double-value rebuy. These are all aspects that affect play in an non-static way.
Now, it is *true* that most players relay on luck. However, the players who do not are the ones who win, and they do win consistently. Not as consistently as a chess player, but more consistently than you are allowing for.
I would allow that in games where the players are all playing at a high level, luck can be a more important factor in the open, and in the end-game. That's poker- the middle game involves more skill. But the role of luck in poker is not static, and gross statistical analysis doesn't tell you *anything* about how individual hands can be played. The fact is, that 90% of hands are *not* played. If you want to go strictly by luck, the majority of hands go to the person lucky enough to be dealt the right cards in the right position. The skill aspect of the game comes in when two players, in two different positions, are each dealt hands they want to play. The game then becomes about strategy. Even in the time it takes to go through one hand, luck can hand you a good pair of hold cards, and then your skill at playing those cards can take over; luck can deal you a bad flop, but again, skill is involved in knowing how to play that eventuality. Poor players play strong cards and fold weak cards. Skilled players find ways of making their strong hands win, and stopping a weak hand from losing.
Again, I would like to know, for what reason do I win the majority of the time that I do play? I don't play that much. A few tournaments a month. But I am a consistent winner. Why? I guarantee you that if you were to analyze the game in the real-life social form, you'd find that very little of it has to do with the cards drawn. You're just approaching this with no appreciation of *how* the game is played when people are facing each other. The online game could be played as well by a computer program as by a person, and in that case, it would be far less complex than a chess program, because the game *is not* about the cards.
The online game *is* about the cards, and the people who play it are either sharks collecting money, or gambling addicts. Anyone who knows poker as a sport knows that online poker is not anything like the real game.
[ March 27, 2012, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Now, it is *true* that most players relay on luck. However, the players who do not are the ones who win, and they do win consistently. Not as consistently as a chess player, but more consistently than you are allowing for.
Then show me the data. People have a natural tendency to underestimate luck when they are winning. That natural bias is so strong that I distrust any conclusion made unless its backed by solid empirical data.
Top professional poker I've found, people whose livelihood depends on accurately understanding the balance of luck and skill, agree with the results of these online studies. These people's livelihood depends on having accurate expectations. They carefully track their statistics and are constantly recalculating the odds. They say its not uncommon for them to have a loosing streak of over 100,000 hands. You say you made the final round in 4 of the 5 last tournaments you entered. Top professionals expect to cash in in only 15% of the tournaments they enter, so either you are far more skilled than the best pros or you've been unusually lucky.
If you were me, which would you believe?
Professional poker players expect
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No Rabbit, I'm much more skilled than the people I've been playing with. What data can I use? The stuff about online poker? I agree with that. Online poker is luck, and for the people who make money off of it, a game of spotting weak players and taking advantage. I don't play in professional tournaments, I play in small multi-table tournaments with amateurs. And I win consistently, because I'm better at it than they are. A pro would never bother playing in these tournaments- there isn't enough money in it.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
Rabbit, could you tell me how the studies you read are defining when someone loses a hand? Are they defining a loss as anything other than a win, or are they using a different definition?
Let me give an example: imagine a poker game with 8 players. There's what I'm guessing is the regular betting scheme (at least, the one on T.V.), where all 8 players contribute an ante but two players contribute larger amounts (the small and big blinds). Let's say the first player looks and his cards and folds immediately. The second player looks at his cards and places a large bet. The next player folds, but the fourth player calls the bet. The remaining four players fold, including both players who put in blinds. The two players remaining play the hand, and the second player (the initial bettor) wins.
In that scenario, how many players lost the hand according to the research? Because I can imagine several different interpretations of who 'lost,' which I think could change the way the data is interpreted.
For example, you could say that 7 players lost because only 1 player won and all others lost at least their ante. You could say that only 3 players (the fourth player and the blinds) lost, because they lost more than their ante. Or you could say that only 1 player lost because only two players 'played' the hand--that is only two players moved beyond the initial betting stage.
In the first example, where each hand has one winner and seven losers, then luck will play an incredibly high role in the game because a player's initial cards are determined entirely by chance. There is some strategy to the initial betting, but there are some hands that are so bad that no one (or almost no one) would try to play them against players of equal skill. Likewise, some hands are so good that any player would play them. And, the more hands that table plays, the more losers there will be compared to winners, and the larger the gulf between luck and skill will seem to grow.
On the other hand, in the last example with one winner and one loser, skill would become much more important relative to luck, because at that point the players are playing each other far more than they're actually playing the cards in their hands. At that point, you could have hands where there are winners but no losers (e.g. where all players fold to the big blind), hands with a winner and a loser, and hands with a winner and a number of losers. As a result, the gulf between skill and luck would shrink.
It seems like part of the impasse in the discussion at present could be because poker players might use the latter definition of losing while the research studies used the former.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the only way poker work as an analogy here is if you only one hand. Sure a middling hand can be improved by skillful play but even a dunce who is dealt a royal flush is going to beat someone who is dealt a pair of threes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Poker is not about the process of composing a hand, it's about representing and betting on a hand as it unfolds. In Hold 'em, you have 4 betting rounds. Read up on it, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
hence why Mahjong is more skillbased then poker, congratuations you proved my point for me.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
As anecdotal evidence, at my previous workplace we used to play at noon for about 1-1.5 hours. We'd start all with the same chips and just record the order in which we got out, and the chips for those still left in when time expired. We did two "seasons" of this with around 50 sessions each IIRC, and I won both seasons. Another player (I'll call him D) came in second in one of the sessions and third in another.
We also had 3 low-stakes money tournaments of around 15-20 players, and I finished 4th, 3rd and 1st. D finished first in one, lost early in another. Another guy who at one point played regularly for money finished 2nd and 4th in two of these tournaments. (He didn't play in the other one.)
I've never had the time and money to actually play in online games for money, but from my limited experience skill does matter in poker.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Poker is not about the process of composing a hand, it's about representing and betting on a hand as it unfolds. In Hold 'em, you have 4 betting rounds. Read up on it, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
hence why Mahjong is more skillbased then poker, congratuations you proved my point for me.
Heh. They are different skills. I have little interest in whether you think one is harder than the other.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the only way poker work as an analogy here is if you only one hand. Sure a middling hand can be improved by skillful play but even a dunce who is dealt a royal flush is going to beat someone who is dealt a pair of threes.
Again, getting *out* of a hand is arguably a more important skill than winning one. This scenario is the far more common: you are dealt a hand you like too much to lay down, even as another person represents an even better one. The skill is in not losing your stack with good cards in front of you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. My point is that to use poker as an analogy to life (whether our luck or our choices determine our fate) life is more analogous to a hand of poker rather than a game or many games. If we are dealt a crap hand, we can't just get out and hope our luck is better next time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Poker is not about the process of composing a hand, it's about representing and betting on a hand as it unfolds. In Hold 'em, you have 4 betting rounds. Read up on it, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
hence why Mahjong is more skillbased then poker, congratuations you proved my point for me.
Heh. They are different skills. I have little interest in whether you think one is harder than the other.
Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly.
Notice that my initial claims is "Mahjong is a better example of a skill based game", Lyrhawn's response was "Doesn't it also involve drawing lots randomly?" To which I explained how and why that's a superficial comparison and how ultimately luck is much less of a factor. That the games are in fact different is just about as profound that an apple is different from an orange. But I guess sometimes you feel the need to feel pride in your ability to point out the obvious and pretend it's meaningful. You're just being pedantic and is of no relevance to the point at hand, also I never said it was "harder" but that it was more "complex", further underlying your intellectual dishonesty which frankly you should really take somewhere else, maybe FreeRepublic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the only way poker work as an analogy here is if you only one hand. Sure a middling hand can be improved by skillful play but even a dunce who is dealt a royal flush is going to beat someone who is dealt a pair of threes.
A Royal Flush? Sure.
But I've bluffed a player out of quads at a casino before.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And some people manage to excel despite hardship. It is the exception, though and a hell of a lot harder.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And some people manage to excel despite hardship. It is the exception, though and a hell of a lot harder.
The problem with this discussion is that we have surrendered significant ground and allowed the overture window to shift significantly towards the Right on this issue to the point where instead of debating that having an equal playing field should be a right to quibbling over whether that possibility of anyone with effort and some luck can succeed means that everyone should go without safetynets, it's baffling and a sobbering reflection to how emasculated progressives in America have been.
It's irrelevant whether or not in a laissez faire environment if anyone in theory through merit can rise to the top, the problem is that the "top" is systemically looting the country and using it to enrich themselves at the expense of those who make the majority and when they can't get away with it or when its not enough to go to other countries to exploit. Unrestrained capitalism as a social and economic farce is a rotten shambling structure that will collapse upon itself after a single strong kick. It can only be perpetuated paradoxically by government regulation and simultaneously only restrained to popular useful through that very same regulation.
Capitalism can only serve the broader utility if it is sufficiently regulated and every citizen granted all the required rights as to not become its slaves through indentured servitude. Universal healthcare, pensions, education, a fair wage and public transportation are all crucial for a modern first world society to both function and give every citizen a fair crack at capitalism, preferably with a nailed cricket bat. Only this way can society become more egalitarian and reduce the wealth gap between the rich and poor and maintain the health of popular social democracy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit, could you tell me how the studies you read are defining when someone loses a hand? Are they defining a loss as anything other than a win, or are they using a different definition?
The research was conducted by Ingo Fiedler of the University of Hamburg. If you are interested in the details -- look it up yourself. I've already spent more time summarizing if than I can reasonably justify.
The question at hand is not whether or not a skilled person can win money over the long term playing poker. They can, no debate.
The question I was addressing was whether poker could reasonably be considered "mostly skill" or "mostly luck". The fact that a skilled person can win over the long term says only that some skill is involved. It says nothing about the relative amounts of skill and luck. I proposed two ways of trying to define what it meant for the game to be "mostly luck" and I backed up my conclusion with actual research work. If you don't like my definition of what if means for a game to be "mostly skill" propose an alternative and back it up with some real data and not just anecdotes.
The question of whether poker was "mostly skill" arose out of a hypothetical example of a single high stakes bet on a roulette wheel. Dan_Frank said if they'd lost the money playing poker instead of roulette the outcome would have been "skill". It doesn't really matter whether he was talking about betting $100,000 on a single hand or in a high stakes tournament -- the outcome is not going to be "mostly skill".
[ March 27, 2012, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
By the way, while you were all discussing whether poker is a game of luck or skill, back here in the Republican primary Mitt Romney won. If you believe Nate Silver, he won after the Arizona debate on Feb. 22, or possibly the Michigan/Arizona primaries on Feb. 28. But for everyone else, his wins in Illinois and Wisconsin seem to have finally cemented the perception of inevitability he's been trying to encourage since, well since he started running, but especially since Florida.
At the same time, President Obama's poll rating has gone up 3-5 points in the last quarter, and he's now running about where Bush was just before the 2004 election. Given Obama's built-in demographic advantage in Virginia and North Carolina, and Romney's populist weakness in the Rust Belt, I'd guess at this point he's headed for a 50-75 elector defeat. Of course, a lot could change over the next seven months: Romney could run a brilliant general campaign, Iran could go nuclear, the economy could meltdown again, US failures in Afghanistan could receive increased attention, Obamacare could be ruled unconstitutional, and so on. But if things stay pretty much the way they've been for the last six months, I see a Romney victory as (unfortunately, IMO) fairly unlikely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The real race doesn't really start until I'd say September.
Remember McCain was doing just fine until around October when the economy really started to come down and he made some really bad statements on the crisis as it unfolded.
But at the outset, I'd say Obama is in great shape. Romney has stuck his foot in his mouth enough times to give Obama more than enough material to work with. No matter how much Romney will try to pivot back to the center, Obama will be ready with a sound clip and a barb. He was forced too far to the right, even though he's still managed to stay more moderate than anyone else. It'll still be a big anchor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Romney would make a terrible president and one to serve at behest of the Congressional GOP, at least with Newt he would be his own man. I can't think of a single platform that Romney runs out that would be remotely appealing to an informed citizenry.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's certainly opinion volatility throughout presidential elections. See this chart from Pollster, for instance. Over the past three elections, from our current point to the end of the election the maximum deviation has been, on average, about 8 points.
That said, the total deviation has been, on average, about 3 points, and that's mostly due to the huge boost (I'd estimate it at 3-4 points) Obama got out of not being a Republican when the financial crisis hit. So, at least for recent history, aggregate polling this far before the election has been a pretty good indicator of outcome.
Said more simply, sure the race hasn't 'started' per se, but in recent elections, while opinions do vary during the race itself, they have tended to settle out to about where they were before the race started, particularly if you discount effects due to events external to the race itself (e.g. the financial crisis). To impose a narrative over a weak statistical argument, both parties are fairly close to parity in terms of the material resources it takes to win a race, so what seems to matter most (again, excluding external shocks) is starting position.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Romney would make a terrible president and one to serve at behest of the Congressional GOP, at least with Newt he would be his own man. I can't think of a single platform that Romney runs out that would be remotely appealing to an informed citizenry.
As a single informed citizen, I find a lot of Romney's positions appealing, from his concern over and plan for the U.S.'s long-term debt problem, to his focus on improving the competitiveness of the U.S. w.r.t. business, to his views on maintaining a high baseline of hard power throughout the world*.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'one to serve at the behest of the Congressional GOP' but I'm guessing you mean he wouldn't be sufficiently independent of his party when determining policy. If so, I'd say that's great; mavericks are fine in theory, but having one as the leader of the free world seems ill-considered to me. I think having a pragmatic President who works with his party leadership to solve problems rather than pronounce dicta is a good thing.
*I may be under the sway of Robert Kagan's most recent book (which I just finished this morning) on that last one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There have been periods in history when "hard power" was extremely beneficial to the US without significant cost. Now it translates to hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern innocents dying at our hands, with no particular benefits even from the standpoint of US self-interest.
Also, I can't believe you'd think Obama is weak on that score. We've got drones everywhere, bombing everyone. What more could a hawk ask for?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
1) I think you're overestimating the costs of current conflicts by a lot, both absolutely (I think the number of Middle Eastern innocents killed by US action is on the order of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands) and also relative to previous conflicts (we spent a lot more, in terms of blood and treasure, on past major conflicts than we have on current ones).
2) I also don't think benefits of direct intervention are clear for a long time. Twenty years after the Korean War ended, it was still unclear whether there had been any real benefit at all. It seems much more clear today.
3) Hard power is more than simply the outcome of military interventions; without US bases in Korea, Japan, Australia, and Guam I don't know that the rise of China would have been nearly as peaceful (or economically beneficial to the US) as it has. Similarly, I think it's at least plausible that the presence of US bases in the Middle East in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (and now Iraq) has likely dissuaded Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia from engaging each other in large scale military confrontationalism.
4) I don't have a big problem with the current President in terms of military policy (in fact, my main criticism has been he's been too aggressive in drone strikes, particularly the cavalier approach to the legality of targeting al Awlaki). But I think his party has an unrealistic long-term vision for the US military. The idea that you can finance indefinite entitlement growth through cutting a military budget that's already roughly at it's lowest level (in terms of % of GDP) since before WWII is, I think, both misguided and possibly dangerous.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
America needs state direction of its economy and a national plan to improve competition, not 50 parallel experiments, some businesses need to be killed off and others started via government intervention. Like the Japanese ministry there that's like the Prussian General staff for the economy.
Romney will simply continue to favor big business and cut taxes, these will not help the economy. State investment in R&D and infrastructure and PEOPLE is what will help the economy. The financial sector is a cancer, it doesnt GROW anything when the auto sector went belly up it still left workers and buildings and infrastructure behind that could be repurposed. What can 80 trillion$ in derivitive debt be retooled into? Is finance important for the economy to grow? Yes, but not the way it currently has where that money hasn't at all helps the middle class but has worsened income disparity, something Mittens doesn't give a shit about.
A Romney presidency will continue the American slide into regressive right wing policies that will further hurt America.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: 1) I think you're overestimating the costs of current conflicts by a lot, both absolutely (I think the number of Middle Eastern innocents killed by US action is on the order of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands) and also relative to previous conflicts (we spent a lot more, in terms of blood and treasure, on past major conflicts than we have on current ones).
Starting the Iraq war was a US action, and it caused at least 100,000 deaths. Whether our guys did the shooting is immaterial to the moral question.
quote:2) I also don't think benefits of direct intervention are clear for a long time. Twenty years after the Korean War ended, it was still unclear whether there had been any real benefit at all. It seems much more clear today.
Seems like a reason not to do it, if the odds of a positive result are so hard to determine. How can you ever be reasonably sure that your actions will have good enough effects to outweigh the 100% certain costs in terms of casualties?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Japan's state-directed capitalism hasn't saved it from the crippling economic stagnation it's been suffering through for the past twenty years. Nor will China's in the long run. National economies without significant state involvement, like India's, can grow just as fast (or faster), and are more adaptive to changing circumstances.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: 1) I think you're overestimating the costs of current conflicts by a lot, both absolutely (I think the number of Middle Eastern innocents killed by US action is on the order of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands) and also relative to previous conflicts (we spent a lot more, in terms of blood and treasure, on past major conflicts than we have on current ones).
Starting the Iraq war was a US action, and it caused at least 100,000 deaths. Whether our guys did the shooting is immaterial to the moral question.
I disagree that the US is culpable for the ~150,000 deaths from the Iraq war. We were the spark, sure, and we're not blameless, but that civil war would have happened sometime whether we invaded or not. Instead of 10,000 Syrians killed by Assad in the last year, we'd be talking about 30,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein.
quote:
quote:2) I also don't think benefits of direct intervention are clear for a long time. Twenty years after the Korean War ended, it was still unclear whether there had been any real benefit at all. It seems much more clear today.
Seems like a reason not to do it, if the odds of a positive result are so hard to determine. How can you ever be reasonably sure that your actions will have good enough effects to outweigh the 100% certain costs in terms of casualties?
That makes it risky, but I don't think that's a reason not to engage in intervention. I think, in general, US interventions have led to a better world, both in terms of the US's parochial interests and in terms of the overall suffering (or lack thereof) of humanity. That's not universally true (Vietnam, Spanish-American War, Latin American interventions in the 60s), but I think it's generally been true. Whether the current conflicts end up more like Korea or Vietnam, we'll have to wait to see. But I don't think the possibility of a Vietnam negates the value of a Korea.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Destineer-
1) I think you're overestimating the costs of current conflicts by a lot, both absolutely (I think the number of Middle Eastern innocents killed by US action is on the order of tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands) and also relative to previous conflicts (we spent a lot more, in terms of blood and treasure, on past major conflicts than we have on current ones).
2) I also don't think benefits of direct intervention are clear for a long time. Twenty years after the Korean War ended, it was still unclear whether there had been any real benefit at all. It seems much more clear today.
3) Hard power is more than simply the outcome of military interventions; without US bases in Korea, Japan, Australia, and Guam I don't know that the rise of China would have been nearly as peaceful (or economically beneficial to the US) as it has. Similarly, I think it's at least plausible that the presence of US bases in the Middle East in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (and now Iraq) has likely dissuaded Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia from engaging each other in large scale military confrontationalism.
4) I don't have a big problem with the current President in terms of military policy (in fact, my main criticism has been he's been too aggressive in drone strikes, particularly the cavalier approach to the legality of targeting al Awlaki). But I think his party has an unrealistic long-term vision for the US military. The idea that you can finance indefinite entitlement growth through cutting a military budget that's already roughly at it's lowest level (in terms of % of GDP) since before WWII is, I think, both misguided and possibly dangerous.
There is a time and place for hard power, but its value can only be tracked in so far as it is a security measure--both by the accomplishment of military goals as well as deterrence of conflict. Ultimately, I land on the side of building our soft-power. Soft power isn't without its downfalls, but I believe that increasing our economic clout and creating dependencies on our nation serves as a more valuable long-term measure than continued investment into our military infrastructure. I view hard power as being able to coerce behavior from another by threat of a gun. There are times when this is necessary as a measure of personal security. But what happens when you take away the gun? The person you've threatened is no longer coerced and hard power alone does nothing to change his or her underlying attitude that made the person a threat in the first place. A reliance on hard power also demands constant investment into the military structure to ensure that no one else can supplant our position. While hard power gives us security, I see very little else it can give.
I actually debated with my father on the issue of the missile defense shields in Europe. I asked what the point of the shield was when it doesn't work. He argued that the technology has been getting substantially better in just the last five years (like the accuracy of drone strikes). Even though our defense system may not work now, that's not reason to dismiss the idea entirely. I argue that until such a time that the shield actually serves a tangible defensive purpose, it's a waste of money and increases discontent. The short of it is that I don't mind defense spending. But I don't want us spending into defense for the sake of spending into defense. I support critical evaluations of the defense budget to figure out where we're not getting our money's worth and further believe that we could very well decrease our overall spending without any significant impact to our defensive capabilities.
This doesn't mean that I wish for only defense cuts to allow for the amount we spend on entitlement programs. I agree that there is (plenty) of room for improvement in our entitlement programs and am open to discussions of reform and well-defended cuts in entitlement spending. I don't think of myself as a tax-and-spend democrat--though I find that to be more fiscally responsible than being a taxcut-and-spend republican. I believe in increasing revenue coupled with targeted spending cuts. I really don't understand why I (and my party) keep getting painted as not caring about the budget. Tax-and-cut seems like a better approach toward fixing the budget than cutting taxes to the same degree we cut spending.
ETA: SenojRetep, my post became less related to the quote as I went on to being generally more soapboxy. I don't mean to target you specifically as the person who paints me as fiscally irresponsible. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I disagree that the US is culpable for the ~150,000 deaths from the Iraq war. We were the spark, sure, and we're not blameless, but that civil war would have happened sometime whether we invaded or not. Instead of 10,000 Syrians killed by Assad in the last year, we'd be talking about 30,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps it was likely to happen anyway, but you can't say it was certain. Suppose there was a 90% chance of eventual civil war. We made it a 100% chance with our actions. That's about as far as you can get from blameless.
quote:That makes it risky, but I don't think that's a reason not to engage in intervention.
It's not a decisive reason to never intervene, but it is obviously a reason to be very hesitant about starting wars where none already exist. (That wasn't the case in either Korea or Vietnam, btw.)
Romney belongs to a school of thought that does not respect such hesitation. He's not as far down that road as bloodthirsty Rudy Giuliani/Joe Lieberman types, but by my reckoning he's still pretty far from reasonable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Japan's state-directed capitalism hasn't saved it from the crippling economic stagnation it's been suffering through for the past twenty years. Nor will China's in the long run. National economies without significant state involvement, like India's, can grow just as fast (or faster), and are more adaptive to changing circumstances.
There was an article in the Economist recently about how India's economy was slowing down dramatically due do a lack of government intervention.
I hate to say it, but I actually agree with a lot of what Blayne said. I don't think we need nearly as much involvement in the economy as China has, but there are a number of things the government in America has traditionally done and needs to do more of in order to put some structure and purpose behind our economic growth. I'm not much of a fan of the government picking winners and losers, per se, but the government does have a vested interest in promoting certain things, otherwise we wouldn't spend billions to keep weapons factories from closing. Government could also untether health care from employers by providing a public option and forcing private companies to be more competitive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Heather Childers, a "straight news" anchor for the Fox News weekend program America's News Headquarters and co-host of Fox & Friends First, tweeted this afternoon: "Thoughts? Did Obama Campaign Threaten Chelsea Clinton's Life 2 Keep Parents Silent?" and linked to a blog post pushing a conspiracy involving the Obama campaign murdering, or threatening to murder, individuals to keep quiet questions about Obama's eligibility.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Lyr-
India's GDP growth has been pretty steady around 9% for the last decade. I'd be interested in what metric of economic growth the Economist article considered.
Vadon-
I absolutely agree with your take on the tax-and-spend vs. taxcut-and-spend issue. I think Republicans' (including Romney's) dogmatic aversion to increased tax rates is hugely problematic for our nation's long-term financial health. When we've engaged in wars, historically, the wealthy class has paid for them through significantly increased taxation. The same should happen today. Furthermore, I don't think there's a viable way (Ryan's plan notwithstanding) to sustain entitlement spending without 1) significantly cutting aggregate benefits, either through excluding some people currently covered or by scaling back coverage (or both) and 2) increasing middle-class (and upper-class) taxes.
Destineer-
I agree that, to some degree we're responsible for those deaths. In fact I said as much in my post. But I don't think we're majorly culpable, which I why I disputed the imputation of hundreds of thousands of innocents' deaths to US foreign policy. I think the moral question is how many excess deaths were caused by intervention. That's not something that can really be answered, since we can't run some sort of controlled experiment on history. But I do think you can make a credible argument, based on similar civil wars where the US was not involved, that it's much lower than the total number of deaths.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are absolutely some problems and people will do it differently and come to different conclusions but it is absolutely something that can and has been studied.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Japan's state-directed capitalism hasn't saved it from the crippling economic stagnation it's been suffering through for the past twenty years. Nor will China's in the long run. National economies without significant state involvement, like India's, can grow just as fast (or faster), and are more adaptive to changing circumstances.
I dispute your knowledge of history as being accurate here, firstly you presume that state interventionism will harm china in the long run, but so far there has been no evidence of this aside from the truism you just stated. This is noticible when one remembers there is in fact considerable evidence that state intervention in China's housing bubble saved them from the worst effects and as a bonus,directed most of the downsides to the individuals responsible for perpetuating the bubble. Such as regulations designed to curb people from owning dozens of empty buildings and waiting for the price to rise and use the rising cost to buy more buildings and so on. Doing it the American way and the problem would have been worse.
Japan's government intervention arguably staved off a Great Depression and maintained their level of GDP and is what popped the bubble in the first place by raising interest rates. Austerity is hurting greece right now, you need the government to be keep things pushing.
Also going to point out that China might be in some ways even more laissez faire then the United States with less regulations and the ones that do exist not enforced, how's that been working out for them?
[ April 04, 2012, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excess deaths can certainly be estimated.
There are absolutely some problems and people will do it differently and come to different conclusions but it is absolutely something that can and has been studied.
Those are estimates of total excess deaths due to the war itself, which is significantly different than what I was talking about. They're also interesting, but significantly flawed, based on data that's become available since the time they were performed. They seem to overestimate deaths by about an order of magnitude.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What data do you mean? Do you have a source for your numbers? Thanks.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I was primarily thinking of the Wikileaks counts (which put the total around 110,000 for 2004-2009; including the initial invasion might bump that by 10-20 thousand. Note that this estimate covers a longer time frame than the surveys you cite, including the peak of the civil war from June 2006-Aug. 2007). There are also well-sourced estimates from the AP and the Iraq Body Count project that comport with the Wikileaks derived estimates, as well as the official estimates of the Iraqi Health Ministry.
Both the studies you cite* are indirect estimates, in that they're based on family surveys rather than first-hand accounts. The fact that well-sourced estimates are much lower than the indirect estimates leads me to question the accuracy of the indirect estimates.
*I confess that I was at first confused about the Iraq Family Health study, which isn't 'orders of magnitude' off of the primary-sourced estimates. I thought you were referencing the highly questionable Opinion Research Business survey that put the low end of their 95% confidence interval on the number of deaths higher than any of the mean estimates of other prominent studies. However, the family health study is still an indirect estimate based on survey respondents and subject to the same problems of data non-independence due to non-uniform sampling and possible overlapping counts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Lyr-
India's GDP growth has been pretty steady around 9% for the last decade. I'd be interested in what metric of economic growth the Economist article considered.
Correction: India's economy IS slowing down, GDP growth at the end of last year was down around the 6% mark.
But the problem isn't a lack of government interference, it's too much, or at least (and here's the important distinction), the wrong kind of interference. Tee hee. I must have been tired when I read the article or just skimmed it. But yeah, you might like it now because it backs you up.
Either way, due to government meddling or lack of same, I'd say the author is making a big deal out of what may be a very temporary deviation. The article is concerned over a quarter of slowed growth (down to 'just' 6.1, or maybe closer to 7.0 after adjustment) from what had been 9 percent over the past several years. One bad quarter does not a narrative make.
That said, this chart does show several consecutive quarters of slowed growth, so maybe there really is something to it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Again, back in the land of the actual primaries, Romney evidently pulled a Paul in North Dakota.
quote:Most of North Dakota’s 25 presidential convention delegates will trot off to Tampa this summer as supporters of current frontrunner former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But how can that be? Just a few weeks ago North Dakota Republicans gathered in caucuses in every county in the state and (guess what?) handed former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum a convincing win.
Remember that Paul (and Santorum) have previously stated that part of their strategy was to use the non-representativeness of the caucus systems to stack the national delegates with supporters, irrespective of the outcome of the initial straw-poll portion of the caucus. The theory was that their die-hard supporters cared enough to sit around the additional hours after the vote to get seated at the state caucus. Well, it seems it's possible to pull off such a strategy, but not necessarily by either of them.
(h/t Dave Weigel)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are you going to answer the question as to why China "long term" is going to encounter problems "because" of government intervention? So far all of the issues that make it "fragile superpower" are all only solvable via government direction.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Honestly Blayne I didn't feel that engaging you in a conversation on why I feel China's government-controlled industrialization will lead to long-term problems was going to be productive for either of us, so I chose not to respond.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:Also going to point out that China might be in some ways even more laissez faire then the United States with less regulations and the ones that do exist not enforced, how's that been working out for them?
Pretty good if you are a government lackey. Pretty crappy if you are an independent entrepreneur. Why are the Chinese manufacturing I-Pads, not inventing them?
Also you underestimate the effects of deregulation, because the government puts a lid on it whenever things bite them in the face. Mysterious illness? Cover it up! Keep shipping the products to the US, they'll check them for problems!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Honestly Blayne I didn't feel that engaging you in a conversation on why I feel China's government-controlled industrialization will lead to long-term problems was going to be productive for either of us, so I chose not to respond.
So you concede?
quote: Pretty good if you are a government lackey. Pretty crappy if you are an independent entrepreneur. Why are the Chinese manufacturing I-Pads, not inventing them?
Also you underestimate the effects of deregulation, because the government puts a lid on it whenever things bite them in the face. Mysterious illness? Cover it up! Keep shipping the products to the US, they'll check them for problems!
This is a pretty terribly constructed argument all things considered.
1) The argument of innovation vs duplication was something I've already discussed at length in another thread, so long as you don't have a stupidly narrownminded view as to what constitutes "innovation" China does plenty of innovation. You could ask "Why is Canada not designing their own planes?" and it would be equally silly.
2) Actually independant entrepreneurs have a pretty good environment to work in, the "China Rises" documentary series I think I vaguely recall linking to had interviews with a bunch of such people, one of them launched the Chinese version of Ebay and competes with it.
3) Finally and again, how is this actually an argument against state intervention? How is it valid on any level? It isn't an issue inherent with state intervention, but a problem specific to those cherry picked issues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:So you concede?
If that's the kind of victory you really want, I'm a little sad for you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
He brought up something that he decided not to substantiate or backup and then cut and run, this is extremely bad form and I feel is a fairly contemptuous form of posting.
He should substantiate or he should concede, there's no validity in entertaining "agree to disagree" stances until this much is shown, that some effort is actually put in, otherwise it's low content you know what and run posting.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't feel like making a new thread and considering NASA gets talked about here sometimes I would like to take a moment to mention the new anime series "Space Bros" is kinda like Apollo 11 though set in 2020's about two Japanese brothers wanting to get into space as astronauts. So anyone vaguely interested in anime and vaguely interested in NASA should watch it, it's a "serious" anime so no silly cliches.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:This is a pretty terribly constructed argument all things considered.
1) The argument of innovation vs duplication was something I've already discussed at length in another thread, so long as you don't have a stupidly narrownminded view as to what constitutes "innovation" China does plenty of innovation. You could ask "Why is Canada not designing their own planes?" and it would be equally silly.
2) Actually independant entrepreneurs have a pretty good environment to work in, the "China Rises" documentary series I think I vaguely recall linking to had interviews with a bunch of such people, one of them launched the Chinese version of Ebay and competes with it.
3) Finally and again, how is this actually an argument against state intervention? How is it valid on any level? It isn't an issue inherent with state intervention, but a problem specific to those cherry picked issues.
Oh, well, since it's such a terrible argument, and I am a narrow-minded person, I'll not waste anymore of your time Blayne.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He brought up something that he decided not to substantiate or backup and then cut and run, this is extremely bad form and I feel is a fairly contemptuous form of posting.
You really have no idea how tiresome you are. Keep calling everyone who doesn't play your idiotic games a coward and "contemptuous." Perhaps you enjoy being a figure of fun. I have no idea why, but perhaps you do.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Please continue to pretend you live in the Czech republic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Speaking of contemptuous and cowardly. Thank you for proving my point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne:
quote:This is a pretty terribly constructed argument all things considered.
1) The argument of innovation vs duplication was something I've already discussed at length in another thread, so long as you don't have a stupidly narrownminded view as to what constitutes "innovation" China does plenty of innovation. You could ask "Why is Canada not designing their own planes?" and it would be equally silly.
2) Actually independant entrepreneurs have a pretty good environment to work in, the "China Rises" documentary series I think I vaguely recall linking to had interviews with a bunch of such people, one of them launched the Chinese version of Ebay and competes with it.
3) Finally and again, how is this actually an argument against state intervention? How is it valid on any level? It isn't an issue inherent with state intervention, but a problem specific to those cherry picked issues.
Oh, well, since it's such a terrible argument, and I am a narrow-minded person, I'll not waste anymore of your time Blayne.
*shrug* well it is, you raise "why doesn't china innovate?" Why do you raise this question? What does it have to do regarding the original point? It's irrelevant.
The original point was "state interventionism will hurt china in the long run" following on from his point that "National economies without significant state involvement, like India's, can grow just as fast (or faster), and are more adaptive to changing circumstances." Implicitly saying that state direction of the economy is inherently stagnative, making it inherently a discussion of state interventionism vs laissez faire.
You post essentially jumps straights to being about China and cherry picked issues without actually addressing the broader point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Speaking of contemptuous and cowardly. Thank you for proving my point.
That's rich, since you would've answered that regardless of how I responded or not responded, which is essentially indicative of how worthless you, your posting, and you response ultimately are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, you could have endeavored not to prove that you are a hypocrite when it comes to "decorum," who's only really interested in getting the respect he never deserves while refusing to show the slightest bit to others. So, really, you could have not proved my point. I couldn't have very well said that if you hadn't- not without it looking rather strange. But you did, predictably, so I suppose I should admit that it was inevitable that I would say: "thank you for proving my point," because you're not really capable of changing the reality- that is, me being right, and you being a child.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He brought up something that he decided not to substantiate or backup and then cut and run, this is extremely bad form and I feel is a fairly contemptuous form of posting.
He should substantiate or he should concede, there's no validity in entertaining "agree to disagree" stances until this much is shown, that some effort is actually put in, otherwise it's low content you know what and run posting.
If you were two random people both without a particular history on this subject who met, a gauntlet was thrown down, and then one preemptively use the "agree to disagree" argument, then I'd back you up, because it would look like a cop out.
But come on Blayne. You've both been here long enough, and you in particular have posted on every Chinese issue of significance under the sun to the point where we all know exactly what you're going to say, and we all know that you aren't going to change your mind. So if he decides that, knowing all this in advance, he'd rather save himself the trouble and not engage in a fruitless conversation, is he really being that awful?
And knowing all that, do you really think he's backing away because he knows he's wrong and can't back himself up, or because he knows that no matter what be brings to the table, you won't accept his thesis?
And when considering that question, then, does opting out of an argument before it starts really amount to "bad form" and "contemptuous" posting?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ninjaed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: He brought up something that he decided not to substantiate or backup and then cut and run, this is extremely bad form and I feel is a fairly contemptuous form of posting.
He should substantiate or he should concede, there's no validity in entertaining "agree to disagree" stances until this much is shown, that some effort is actually put in, otherwise it's low content you know what and run posting.
If you were two random people both without a particular history on this subject who met, a gauntlet was thrown down, and then one preemptively use the "agree to disagree" argument, then I'd back you up, because it would look like a cop out.
But come on Blayne. You've both been here long enough, and you in particular have posted on every Chinese issue of significance under the sun to the point where we all know exactly what you're going to say, and we all know that you aren't going to change your mind. So if he decides that, knowing all this in advance, he'd rather save himself the trouble and not engage in a fruitless conversation, is he really being that awful?
And knowing all that, do you really think he's backing away because he knows he's wrong and can't back himself up, or because he knows that no matter what be brings to the table, you won't accept his thesis?
And when considering that question, then, does opting out of an argument before it starts really amount to "bad form" and "contemptuous" posting?
Posting something he as such "knows" might be contentious and then not back it up is pretty bad form Lyrhawn. Additionally its clear that the thesis is that state interventionism is disadvantagous to the economy, so there's a double duty here, one: to show why this is, and two: why does this apply to china?
It does become questionable if he has good evidence to back up either of these when they so nicely line up in a single statement "long term state interventionism will hurt China" he would need to show both points and why they relate. This however is not an argument that has actually been made or substantiated upon per se on this forum, so you wouldn't know what I would say.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think I have a pretty good guess.
But I decline to elaborate further. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I know the Pope's position on buggery, but I wonder how he feels about somnophilia... I have no possible way of knowing!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah I've posted here literally 10 times less than Lyr and I still think I also have a pretty good guess.
Just let it go, man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm actually curious, but I suspect there's no real way to get a serious answer: do you really believe that in this exchange you've won against Senoj, Blayne? Or that he was actually reluctant to take up a challenge from you because he doesn't trust his rhetorical skill and the validity of his arguments against you? Or is this rather just a means by which you can drive him from the field, so to speak, and declare victory, and you know it? That whole matter is one which will most likely get nothing but shades of 'I was perfectly reasonable and my arguments were just too good' as it ever does, but still. I'm curious. I suspect nobody else would characterize Senoj as reluctant to take up a challenge, but perhaps you really are the one to lay him out, so to speak.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Blayne: this is one of those times where everything you think you are utilizing strategically in your favor is really just working against you, no matter how many words you devote to insisting that this exchange is you winning against someone else conceding thus making your point stronger.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
And just as a general rule of thumb, if you are arguing with someone one of the poorest indicators that you've "won" the argument is declaring it so yourself.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm actually curious, but I suspect there's no real way to get a serious answer: do you really believe that in this exchange you've won against Senoj, Blayne? Or that he was actually reluctant to take up a challenge from you because he doesn't trust his rhetorical skill and the validity of his arguments against you? Or is this rather just a means by which you can drive him from the field, so to speak, and declare victory, and you know it? That whole matter is one which will most likely get nothing but shades of 'I was perfectly reasonable and my arguments were just too good' as it ever does, but still. I'm curious. I suspect nobody else would characterize Senoj as reluctant to take up a challenge, but perhaps you really are the one to lay him out, so to speak.
You post something, you are obligated to take responsibility for those words, if your right then you should take the time to explain why you think you are right and put effort into your posting. If you don't feel like it you really shouldn't have posted it in the first place, because you wasted people's time who took the effort to respond to you. This is why it is bad form and I feel that there should be a disincentive to making unsubstantiated statements and then not backing them up. If next week Sen makes another statement about the role of governent in the economy or the long term trends of chinese economic growth and continues to make unsubstantiated arguments is that fair? Of course not, and that is why he should concede the point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Blayne, not everyone has the same "rules" about posting as you do. Some of us state things once, as clearly as possible, and are then done. You may not like that style of posting, but it is every bit as valid and "fair" as yours, which some may find overly confrontational.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another question: do you think your repeated insistence that someone is chickening out or behaving contemptuously is an incentive to respond as you demand, or an incentive to refrain from discussing a few clusters of issues with you?
(Hint: this is one of those questions about what IS, not what should be. Further hint: how easy is it for you to find someone to have a lengthy discussion with you that follows the sorts of forms you like on, say, Republicans or China?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I do like how in this circumstance, blayne's explanation about what senoj's statements are/should be according to blayne's own decorum policy (for others) is pretty legitimately what has most validated senoj's disincentive to engage blayne in the first place.
Think about it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Another question: do you think your repeated insistence that someone is chickening out or behaving contemptuously is an incentive to respond as you demand, or an incentive to refrain from discussing a few clusters of issues with you?
(Hint: this is one of those questions about what IS, not what should be. Further hint: how easy is it for you to find someone to have a lengthy discussion with you that follows the sorts of forms you like on, say, Republicans or China?)
% Wise I hardly ever post about Republicans or US politics anywhere nearly as much as other posters here. Additionally I do not believe I've in the past experience people "chickening out" from a conversation, this is arguably the first time.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I coach speech and debate. I instruct students how to write cases, win arguments, and win rounds in good fashion. They learn how to pick apart an argument based on logical fallacies, the importance of substantiating claims with evidence, and how to persuade different kinds of people to their position. I teach them how to win.
But the most important lesson I teach is that in the real world, debate isn't about winning and losing. What I'm coaching is a competitive event, a game. Debating a real person isn't about finding weaknesses in their arguments and trying to exploit them. Debate is about trying to find the truth or the closest thing to it. There's no "winning" a real-world debate unless everybody wins, there's no judge to give you points, no trophies at the end of the day. The only thing you can hope to gain is that some progress has been made in understanding the issue you discussed.
I have a competitive drive. I fully understand why it can be frustrating to present an argument you spent a lot of time writing only to be ignored. But that's the way it is, sometimes. Rather than be contemptuous with people for not engaging me, I choose to figure out why no one engaged me. It has never been because they're weak-willed or operated in poor faith. At worst, it's because they weren't interested. And that's not an inherently bad thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nice post, Vadon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Indeed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Really? Heh.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
India's various levels of government have been ultra-strongly involved in micromanaging its economy, down to the smallest of its small businesses, since Independence. It is only after China's EconomicMiracle had totally blown away India's pretense to equivalent economic/military might that India has allowed some economic reforms to get the worst of the highly bribable politicians&bureaucrats outta business micromanagement.
[ April 06, 2012, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
meh... Extremist rightwing funding of FactCheck and economic rightwing Republican funding of PolitiFact have always been the primary influence on those organizations output. If ya ain't willing to lie to the point just short of making yourself look obviously absurd, ya don't work there for long.
[ April 06, 2012, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"There's no "winning" a real-world debate unless everybody wins, there's no judge to give you points, no trophies at the end of the day."
Frankly you don't even live anywhere vaguely close to the real world. Getting people to swallow complete&utter bilge has always been the main road to economic success and political power.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: meh... Extremist rightwing funding of FactCheck and economic rightwing Republican funding of PolitiFact have always been the primary influence on those organizations output. If ya ain't willing to lie to the point just short of making yourself look obviously absurd, ya don't work there for long.
Man, considering that Politifact is reviled by the Right and apparently also the Left for being biased (each in favor of the other), it's amazing they've survived as long as they have!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Do you think the Huffpo article is wrong in this case?
It seems like the phrase "Republicans vote to end Medicare" is a decent abbreviation for what actually happened, namely, "Republicans vote to end Medicare gradually over the course of 30 or so years, and replace it with a completely different program."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Right reviles it cuz its associates won't allow themselves to look obviously absurd: eg won't endorse "Obama is an illegal alien Muslim extremist bent on the total destruction of America."
The Left reviles it cuz it uses extremely narrow definitions to brand as false what is true: eg Cheney profited from the Iraq War. Defining profit as what he made after the war was declared; and not including the multi-million dollar bribe* he accepted upon resignation from a major oil company and military contractor to accept the position of VicePresident.
* It wasn't a performance bonus cuz the company was worse off at the time he left than at the time he had joined.
[ April 06, 2012, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Do you think the Huffpo article is wrong in this case?
It seems like the phrase "Republicans vote to end Medicare" is a decent abbreviation for what actually happened, namely, "Republicans vote to end Medicare gradually over the course of 30 or so years, and replace it with a completely different program."
Rhetorically speaking it is, perhaps, a decent abbreviation.
But as a statement of fact, no, it would be far more accurate to say they voted to radically change Medicare, since their goal was to maintain a program called Medicare that fulfilled the same basic function that Medicare currently does.
Whether or not their plan would be particularly effective is yet another issue, in my opinion. Even "Congress votes to cripple Medicare and ruin it for everyone within 20 years" would be more "accurate," albeit highly partisan.
Analogy Time!
If Congress votes to radically restructure our military presence in Afghanistan, removing all current troops stationed there and replacing them with new recruits or military contractors like Xe, and change all of the overall objectives of the occupation... I don't think a headline "Congress votes to end the war in Afghanistan" would be accurate, and I don't think you would either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think it WOULD be accurate in so much as America is no longer actually fighting the war. If you outsource your production to China your still not making them in the US are you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The Right reviles it cuz its associates won't allow themselves to look obviously absurd: eg won't endorse "Obama is an illegal alien Muslim extremist bent on the total destruction of America."
Yeah, that must be it.
You know, I think I'm paraphrasing a quote here but I can't remember who and my google-fu failed me, but I think this is a generally true piece of advice about arguing: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it.
Edit: Destineer, I answered your question on the very end of the previous page, just FYI. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Another question: do you think your repeated insistence that someone is chickening out or behaving contemptuously is an incentive to respond as you demand, or an incentive to refrain from discussing a few clusters of issues with you?
(Hint: this is one of those questions about what IS, not what should be. Further hint: how easy is it for you to find someone to have a lengthy discussion with you that follows the sorts of forms you like on, say, Republicans or China?)
% Wise I hardly ever post about Republicans or US politics anywhere nearly as much as other posters here. Additionally I do not believe I've in the past experience people "chickening out" from a conversation, this is arguably the first time.
Uh, you did it earlier in this thread, to me. You've done it twice in just the last 3 pages of this thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No idea what you are talking about, nor do I give a shit, nor does anyone else give a shit.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I have a better one. If your opponent is a paid liar, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I think I'm paraphrasing a quote...: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it."
I have a better one: If your opponent is paid to lie, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly. [/QB]
You pathetic liar.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I think I'm paraphrasing a quote...: If you can't articulate your opposition's position in a way they would agree with, you probably don't actually understand what their position is, and therefore can't accurately criticize it."
I have a better one: If your opponent is paid to lie, he'll deny any description of his true position that isn't a lie.
So, the best way you have of understanding people who have very different ideas than you is to believe they are actually liars and have secret, nefarious agendas?
Don't you think that's interesting?
Have you considered what might happen if you tried to interpret everyone's behavior and statements as straightforwardly and positively as possible?
Just to see if you might draw any different conclusions about why people have different opinions than you. Even if some of them are liars, would addressing them as if they believe what they say hurt anything?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No idea what you are talking about, nor do I give a shit, nor does anyone else give a shit.
I give at least as much of a crap re: what Orincoro has to say as I do what you have to say. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's so deliciously ambiguous.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It is! Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly.
You pathetic liar. [/QB]
Go suck on a pistol.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
LOL. Hey, don't be a coward, substantiate how you didn't "arguably" claim other people were cowards nd how you don't care.
Or just ninja your post so you don't get banned. Either way, be a hypocrite. You're great at it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ]Then your being disingenuous in your dishonesty trying to start something and then not sticking around to substantiate is just plain cowardly.
You pathetic liar.
Go suck on a pistol. [/QB]
Quoted for posterity.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If I'm asked to edit it, I'll edit it. Your the one who wouldn't let the thread move on, as everything has to be about you apparently and your beef with everything I do so yeah that's a victory for you I guess.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, big bad me and not liking being called a fraud and a liar, seeing sworn at and defamed and insulted at every turn. Such a villain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah your totally not bullying people every other thread like Stonewolf for his common internet witticisms and not trying to prove your superiority every other post, your just totally a blameless victim who did absolutely nothing wrong and kept to yourself and never bothered with me before this moment, oh how could I dare be so blind in my victimization of you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Uh, guys, considering this thread is a good 50+ pages, it sure would be a shame to get it locked now, wouldn't it?
[selfish] Plus aspectre hasn't replied to my questions yet. [/selfish]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:snort: tell me to shoot myself again. You've got the high ground. You're all bout class an decorum, as we all know.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Uh, guys, considering this thread is a good 50+ pages, it sure would be a shame to get it locked now, wouldn't it?
[selfish] Plus aspectre hasn't replied to my questions yet. [/selfish]
Don't make me bully you Frank. You know you can't resist my terribleness.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I really don't care, nothing you've ever said or done has ever indicated that I should.
quote: Blayne, if you weren't such an unconscionable ****, I would find it harder to justify how I talk to you.
But you are. And you continually pave over all your redeeming qualities by being a feckless, pigheaded, whiney little ****, crying and bitching for respect you have never earned; and vomiting abuse like sour milk at anyone who refuses to grant you the courtesy you have NEVER shown another person in all the years I have interacted with you. Once again, **** that.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: No idea what you are talking about, nor do I give a shit, nor does anyone else give a shit.
So you concede? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He concedes, I think.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A pissing contest with Orincoro just means the whole room gets very smelly very fast.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I eat a lot of brussels sprouts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
そうですか。おもしろい。
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Let us know when you can speak a foreign language well enough not to use google translate. Then we might be impressed.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I could post a picture of my Japanese certificate though you would still be an asshole, just a slightly more informed one about people you know nothing about.
But hey, more on that issue of lowering the level of discourse for all involved.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hey, sure, I'd love to see how your photoshop abilities are coming along.
ETA: doesn't it suck to have your basic life facts questions frivolously by people who know little about you? Geez, I'm sure glad nobody ever tried to do that to me. I wouldn't like it...
irony 2 |ˈīərnē| adjective of or like iron : an irony gray color.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You *always* questioned them, that's what started this whole thing.
quote: I'll care who's giving you credit for something the second I see you giving someone else credit for anything- particularly on the level of your usual bullshit. You don't *need* credit from me. That's my point. If you could get over yourself for 3 seconds you'd realize that. But that never does change. Back when you were 16 and couldn't write a coherent sentence, you wanted just as much credit as you want today. *That's* bullshit. That's how you've not changed. What, you forget me complimenting you on your improved writing abilities? I did many times. I acknowledged you in many ways. You shit all over that. You don't even remember it. So **** all that. Your strategy for engaging me on some higher level is to question whether I am lying about everything I have ever said about myself? And I'm the bad guy. **** that. Dag can give you a pass for calling me a liar, an evil person, and god knows who can remember what else. And you're the victim. People are just so rough on you. What, do you want to extract some kind of conciliation from me? Why? I should endure all your shit, all your niggling petty bullshit, over and over, again and again in the same way, and I should apologize to you for it? You're not culpable at all? Jesus Christ, you call me an evil bastard- I've never seen anyone with so little sense of shame.
"Would it be better if he didn't blow up? Sure. But it would be even better if people didn't treat him like shit."
He treats others like shit. I have no sympathy in that regard. How do you fix it? Meh, not my responsibility.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really, that's me questioning your basic life statistics? That's me calling you a liar? I see me calling you a lot of things. A liar is not among them.
I like that you think my words will be embarrassing or impeaching to me. They are not. I stand behind everything you've quoted. And you've gotten worse, not better.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
People have been more often damned standing by and behind their words then away from them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, now we know why you so often pretend never to have said most of the unbelievably stupid things you say.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*shrug* Nothing remains to be said.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh man, those Republicans sure are crazy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Boy howdy.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro / Blayne: You are to cease addressing each other here for now, while I decide how to deal what's already been said.
If this continues for another post, I'm locking this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not a surprise really. Newt is on the verge of campaign collapse if you believe recent news. Santorum is dead in elections for the next month, and Obama has begun directly addressing Romney by name. Santorum might try to stretch this thing out for a few more months to the convention, but I think Romney is done wasting time and money.
Sad thing is, Romney has had to spend four times as much as Santorum for every vote he won. This primary lasted way longer than most people thought, and bled millions from his campaign coffers. But now that he and Obama are starting to directly hit each other, I think we're seeing the beginnings of the real race. More and more I think you're going to see Romney ignore the other candidates entirely. It will take a miracle now for Romney to lose a brokered convention.
PS. Please don't get my thread locked. We've always managed to keep these threads civil and long lasting despite the hot topics often being discussed. Hopefully you guys respect me, BlackBlade, and the other posters here enough to take a time out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This smacks of Accelerationism, even if this end's up making single payer a core democratic issue it will still end up like 30 years from now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Huh, I hadn't quite considered it from that angle, but it makes sense. A lot of people complain that "Obamacare" as it is will lead to single payer in the far flung future, though that seems like a pretty convoluted process.
But I think he's right. Obamacare, no matter how much conservatives want to scream otherwise, was a compromise. Liberals wanted single payer, or at LEAST a public option, and were stymied on both. So they went with a model created by conservatives that married universal coverage to the private market. If SCOTUS says that's off limits, then so is compromise, and it's back to what they wanted originally.
I question how militant they will be about it. I'm perfectly willing to buy the ideological half of the argument. With nothing else to compromise on, no more ground to give up, and this being an issue they've fought over for decades, liberals WILL coalesce around single payer. But how angry will they be? How much will they push? That's the big question, and history suggests they back down far more often than I'd like. So while I think the rhetorical argument will head in that direction, I question how much they'll push.
Meanwhile, conservatives are trying to dismantle the government-provided options we already have with Medicare and Medicaid. For all the talk about both parties not being much different, I don't see how this issue, in particular, doesn't dramatically separate them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yup, there is no question in my mind that while both parties are corporatist hacks one side is clearly less worse than the other, and its rests on which party is actively trying to roll back social reforms.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Tough one to call on who made more of a fool of themself in this thread. I think the bar is set higher for one, so he had lower to fall.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I question how militant they will be about it.
I'm sure they'll show their same characteristic restraint, said sam, with a completely straight face
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I think you misunderstand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
completely. straight.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No, Sam is acknowledging that Congressional Democrats tend towards unrestrained histrionics and vitriol.
Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with their goals, he's just big enough not to give 'em a pass for their behavior. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh I don't doubt that he thinks the same is true for Republicans.
I actually thought jebus was right, and he did misread you, and meant to only be speaking about Republicans in the first place. But perhaps I'm mistaken, and my sarcasm was unnecessary.
I mean, even more unnecessary than sarcasm normally is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Actually, I think he's saying that while BOTH sides tend towards unrestrained histrionic and vitriol, Democrats generally fail to follow through with action, while Republicans are loud AND throw an elbow.
Yeah, we're not talking about effective bitching.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:CPAC is here, so it’s time for everyone’s annual look at the psychos invited to the premier conservative event of the year, and those unfortunate enough to have been excluded.
GOProud, the gay Republican group that was founded because the Log Cabin Republicans were considered too concerned about gay civil rights and not sufficiently focused on “fiscal issues,” is not invited this year, because they are too “aggressive” about being gay, which made Jim DeMint uncomfortable.
CPAC also uninvited the John Birch Society, which had made a triumphant return to mainstream conservative acceptance in 2010, when they co-sponsored the conference.
But! While the Birchers and the open homosexualists are no longer welcome, there is still room for multiple outspoken white nationalists!
quote:One is Peter Brimelow*, founder of the nativist site VDARE which publishes the works of white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and the other is Robert Vandervoort, who runs a group called ProEnglish and according to the Institute for Research on Education and Human Rights, "was also the organizer of the white nationalist group, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance," which is affiliated with Taylor.
They'll be appearing on a panel titled "The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity" alongside National Review's John Derbyshire, who believes "that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races," differences that are "facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets." I'm not sure whether there's really any daylight between Derbyshire, who is a long-time writer at American conservatism's flagship magazine, and the two other men he's appearing with.
Scratch the downgrade to stealth from Derbyshire. He decided to be on the up-and-up and get all straightforward about the issue. Of whether or not he's a racist prick.
quote:The conservative columnist and author John Derbyshire has prompted outrage after penning an article in which he urges white and Asian parents to tell their children to avoid contact with black Americans they do not know.
...
Derbyshire added: "If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving." He also suggested not living in an area run by black politicians. "If you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives," he concluded.
Just a reminder about how the CPAC had people like this as speakers. A friendly, friendly reminder.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Jesus. Sounds like the Natty Review has fired the guy, at least.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lord God on high. I just read his article. I would post the worst parts, but I'd just end up posting the whole thing. He fulfills every archetype of contemporary white racism.
I should give at least one example:
quote:(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
"You should make black friends so that you can say, 'But I have all these black friends!'" Oh Lord Jesus. How is this guy even real?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Progress! 'Many' IWSBs, whereas before they were universally sub-human thanks to being apes or descendants of Cain or something. I suppose the next step will be something like 'befriend IWSBs because they, at least, are actually worthwhile human beings among Bs'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: "You should make black friends so that you can say, 'But I have all these black friends!'" Oh Lord Jesus. How is this guy even real?
He is real and a classic steve sailer styled example of:
quote:the small contingent of the modern American new-old-right, AKA, "Paleoconservatives", as they like to call themselves. They're the people who William F. Buckley Jr. spent 50 years trying to kick out of mainstream American right wing politics. They all seem to share an overwhelming preoccupation with a so-called "white christian identity," and often repackage and rehash the classic antisemitic conspiracies, which they attempt (badly) to bury under a veil of non-interventionist foreign policy. They are closer in ideology to the European far-right nationalist parties, eg, the BNP, Vlaams Belang, The French National Front, than your typical off the shelf Republican. Pat Buchanan is probably their best known ideologue.
With this, Romney is more or less officially the candidate, barring some dramatic happenstance at the convention.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Excellent news. It's time to get down to the business of presidential candidacy. I wonder how many Romney/Obama debates we're going to get.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
With this, Romney is more or less officially the candidate, barring some dramatic happenstance at the convention.
Ron Paul is totally gonna sneak up on romney
And I'm sure you will be lurking on Intrade if he does.
edit: Though I imagine that won't affect the trade values that much. There can't be that many people who think he has a chance..
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Paul has always boasted the highest quantity, by far, of delirious inability to comprehend his true chances as a candidate among his followers. It's weird, but always profitable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd like to see Romney start trending to the center now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, at this point wouldn't it need to be a trend like a landslide is a mountain trending sideways on a downward slope?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
George W. Bush discussed his newish book the other day and said that we should focus on growing the economy not so much fiscal austerity. It's a good thing he's not the Republican nominee these days.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmm. I suppose if there was something that would lend further help to the Democratic ticket besides this long drawn out primary which leaves Romney only eight months to walk back his primary campaign to the center, it would be Dubya being in political discussion as well, heh. Not that this is him making a big splash or anything, of course.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Eric Cantor decides doing nothing and being in the do nothing Congress amount to the same thing.
I'm sure he'll waste no time monetizing his freedom to lobby for the private sector.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I liked this comment.
"We always knew he was a loser. Now we know he's also a quitter."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ugh, do I already have to start up primary threads for 2016?
I wasn't even planning to start my midterms coverage til October.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
BB--congress works on a seniority system. Those who are there the longest get the best jobs. That makes sense if you are working with a congressman who's been there for 12 years vs one who just arrived. What Cantor is doing is allowing his replacement to have 3 months seniority on all those elected this year. He is hoping it will be his Republican counterpart, but if not the Governor can appoint someone else, so there is no advantage gained by a Democrat elected.
He's not being lazy or quitting, he's playing the game as he's been taught.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Feel free to point out the next time a Democrat resigns early for these reasons. Frankly I don't think Congress should get to adjourn. They've wasted the American people's time for an obscene amount of time, and I wish we could can the lot of them.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Darth_Mauve: So if there are strategic reasons for doing so it's OK to resign early? I mean I get this isn't the first time anybody has done this. But the man's seat is still going to sit vacant until special elections in November. Is it wrong to expect electors to work hard until the end of their term, especially when they have in no uncertain terms lowered the bar for not doing what they are paid and elected to do for years now?
From the link you posted:
quote: The decision will leave Virginia’s 7th Congressional District without a representative for two-and-a-half months, but most of that time the House will be adjourned to allow lawmakers to campaign before November.
Do you really think his early resignation makes any difference?
If a Democrat did this and Republicans made the same fuss that you're making, would you agree with the Republicans?
Feel free to point out the next time a Democrat resigns early for these reasons. Frankly I don't think Congress should get to adjourn. They've wasted the American people's time for an obscene amount of time, and I wish we could can the lot of them.
I don't think they should get to adjourn either, but there are numerous Democrats (and some Rrepublicans) that are scared about their re-election chances.
If this wasn't an election year, they probably wouldn't adjourn. The House could probably care less, but the Senate? It plays into the Democrats favor to adjourn. They get two advantages for doing it; First, they get to blame Republicans for doing nothing, though even if Republicans wanted they couldn't since Congress was adjourned (they wouldn't anyways), and second, they get to campaign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The seats up for this midterm are pretty much the solidly most vulnerable for democrats ( i THINK. ) I know that 2017-2018 is going to be a veritable republocaust because demographics are looking grim for conservatives in the districts represented in that election, but the republicans would have to be in a super terrible position to NOT make gains in the upcoming election.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
, then I was like this ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
:![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Tone can be easy to mistake in an online forum. Since I had no idea why he was offended by my post, I took it as an attempt to divert attention from the argument and put me on the defensive. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
) is Traian Basescu, in case anyone was wondering. ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)