It's not like he could, you know, take a moral stand, and say, "I don't care how much more money the Republicans can raise through Super Pacs. Super Pacs are the worst kind of disease that plagues our election process, and I don't want to purchase my reelection. I condemned Super Pacs in my State of the Union Address back in 2011 and I meant every word. If I can't be reelected president without letting big business pave the way with their endless supply of money, much of it unfairly earned through tax loop holes, I don't want to be reelected at all! I leave the choice where it should always be, with the American people, not with American big business."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
What's a Super Pac?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
It's not like he could, you know, take a moral stand, and say, "I don't care how much more money the Republicans can raise through Super Pacs. Super Pacs are the worst kind of disease that plagues our election process, and I don't want to purchase my reelection. I condemned Super Pacs in my State of the Union Address back in 2011 and I meant every word. If I can't be reelected president without letting big business pave the way with their endless supply of money, much of it unfairly earned through tax loop holes, I don't want to be reelected at all! I leave the choice where it should always be, with the American people, not with American big business."
Here's the issue I have with that. Super PACs are legal. I wish they weren't, but they are. Until they're made illegal, I'd rather use them until they are made illegal. If we don't use them and win, then the wind is taken out of the sails as to why they're bad. "See? President Obama didn't need a Super PAC at all! So why get rid of them?" If President Obama didn't use a Super PAC and lost, it makes the point that Super PACs are bad, but suddenly we have people in office who aren't going to do a thing about them.
At least when both sides are using Super PACs, it's a wash. I want them to be illegal, but until that time that they're made illegal, I don't want to take the tool out of the toolbox on principle. If we remove the option, it's a losing situation in either result.
ETA: To Jeff,
Before the Citizens United ruling in 2010 there were PACs (Political Action Comittees). PACs are organizations that are (technically) independent of a campaign. Because of this, they don't have the same finance laws as campaigns. Depending on the level of the campaign, individual contributions are limited to around $2,300 per person. A PAC doesn't have that limitation.
Citizen's United changed two big things. The first is that organizations may explicitly support candidates in their own advertising. Before you'd have to make your literature and advertising "issue" focused by using soft-money. The second is that corporate contribution limits were removed. Now, candidates have a Super PAC which they (technically) don't run, but they are explicit in their support of that candidate. So now big contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions are funneled into the Super PAC to bypass campaign finance laws.
ETA2: I may have taken away some of the nuance of what constitutes a Super PAC, so if someone want to correct me, I will defer to your expertise.
[ February 07, 2012, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I agree, in a political environment this toxic, use them and maybe the partisan opposition will want to eliminate superpacs.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: What's a Super Pac?
So basically, Obama was trying to stay away from the big business influence on politics, but now he doesn't hvae a choice because he can't compete financially.
Is that about right?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
As I understand it Obama will actually be able to out spend them by 2 to 1.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
2 to 1? I haven't seen that number anywhere. He's going to be well outspent even with the big lead he has
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
President Obama has always had really strong beliefs against corruption and undue corporate influence right up until the point where it required him to make any sort of sacrifice. I just assume there's an * after any sort statement saying that these things are wrong and toxic for our country that represents "* unless it inconveniences me".
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: President Obama has always had really strong beliefs against corruption and undue corporate influence right up until the point where it required him to make any sort of sacrifice. I just assume there's an * after any sort statement saying that these things are wrong and toxic for our country that represents "* unless it inconveniences me".
Yeah, that sounds about right, unfortunately.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, to be fair, it's quite likely that if he hadn't made this switch, he would just have caught a terrific asskicking in the general. It's not as though he realized, "Well dang, I'll have to go a few steps out of my way or keep my principles."
So while I'm irritated and exasperated at this about-face, expected though it was, I'll wait to see what his long term policies are on the matter too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, to be fair, it's quite likely that if he hadn't made this switch, he would just have caught a terrific asskicking in the general. It's not as though he realized, "Well dang, I'll have to go a few steps out of my way or keep my principles."
So while I'm irritated and exasperated at this about-face, expected though it was, I'll wait to see what his long term policies are on the matter too.
Agreed.
Also remember that presidents use their second terms more often to fix stuff like this, when they don't have to worry about reelection.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
If you were redesigning the system, Lyrhawn, what would you do with regard to the length of presidential terms, and term limits?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, to be fair, it's quite likely that if he hadn't made this switch, he would just have caught a terrific asskicking in the general.
I don't grant that this is true. President Obama can and already has raised a ridiculous amount of money for his re-election. He also enjoys the unparallelled power of the bully pulpit of being the President of the United States.
Frankly, the idea that he would suffer a "terrific asskicking" when limited to this seems ridiculous. It might make things somewhat more difficult for him, but the idea that he would be doomed to lose seems unrealistic to me. It seems to me that there are even several positive aspects of sticking with what he claimed as his principles.
---
Also, I want to make the point again about what this perspective says about the validity of American democracy and the ways of fixing it. To me, complaining about the overwhelming role that campaign finance plays in our elections is a tacit admission that American democracy is fundamentally broken at the level of the voters. It only works if you see a large section of the American public as failing in their very important responsibilities and voting based on poor reasons.
To me, there is a contradiction of believing this while also pushing the populist narrative that it is better when we give more power to the people and that what they decide is unquestionably good. It seems to me that it'd be more logical to dispute the core idea of this.
The primary problem with campaign finance is that more money roughly translates into more votes. The primary problem with that is that people vote irresponsibly and are swayed by the use of money much more than a reasonable consideration of the quality of the candidates. That seems to me to be the core message to push instead of the one that seems to say "It's okay that you don't approach voting responsibly. You're a victim of those terrible corporations and unable to do any better."
[ February 09, 2012, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, to be fair, it's quite likely that if he hadn't made this switch, he would just have caught a terrific asskicking in the general.
Honestly, I doubt it. I know it feels true, but there are (IIRC) very mixed results in the PolySci literature on how effective money is in influencing an election beyond a certain threshold. I can go look for links if people are interested but I don't have any on hand at the moment. I find the thesis that Super PACs will significantly impact the Presidential election to be at least less than a certainty.
Where money does have an inordinate impact is on down ballot races. If a state senate candidate can outspend an opponent in a race for name recognition, it can significantly change electoral outcomes.
<edit>Here is a post from John Sides on the impact of money on elections, in response to a David Brooks Op-Ed in the NYT. Sides (at least on the surface) disagrees with my above characterization:
quote:[T]he major debate is not over whether money matters, it’s over the relative impact of incumbent and challenger spending.
There are other questions where political science doesn’t have a solid answer, as far as I know. One is whether independent expenditures matter over and above the (much larger) spending by candidates and parties, so Brooks’s skepticism regarding these expenditures isn’t necessarily contradicted by any evidence.
That said, a (seemingly well informed) commenter in the comments thread for the post says
quote:I think the more accurate statement (rather than simply that money matters) is that political science has uncovered considerable complexity. Money seems to be influential, but in a threshold, ratio, or conditional way. In other words, its relative to how much the incumbent spends, the marginal effect per dollar changes in a non-linear fashion, and/or the effect of spending is conditional on party, popularity, type of spending, etc.
which sounds more like what I was trying to say (although with additional nuance).</edit>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the things that the Super PACs allow is representatives of the candidates (that are totally not coordinating with the candidates any more) putting out all sorts of false and/or nasty information with the candidate being able to say "Hey, I can't do anything about what my former campaign strategists and leaders/business partners/relatives/etc. do."
It also allows candidates to take brib...I mean campaign donations from sources that can remain anonymous, which strikes me as another thing that is right up President Obama's alley.
[ February 09, 2012, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: President Obama has always had really strong beliefs against corruption and undue corporate influence right up until the point where it required him to make any sort of sacrifice. I just assume there's an * after any sort statement saying that these things are wrong and toxic for our country that represents "* unless it inconveniences me".
But isn't that every politician?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:In a statement Maher said that having Obama as president over his Republican rivals was "worth a million dollars."
I whole-heartedly endorse this form of voluntary wealth redistribution. Given the dearth of evidence that any of this money matters at all (in terms of political outcomes), I figure opening the super PAC floodgates actually amounts to a luxury tax on the elite who want to believe themselves to be politically important. I'll have to endure more virulent political ads, but it'll comfort me to know that the millionaires' money is out there circulating around, stimulating our economy.*
Heh, I didn't realize Google+ was open!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dennis Kucinich lost his primary battle against another long time Democratic incumbent. Like his zaniness or not, Congress just lost a strong liberal voice, which I'm not thrilled about.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), who many saw as the favorite to capture the open seat in Maine being vacated by Olympia Snowe and who was being pushed by progressive groups, has decided not to run. Instead, the Dems best hope now for a pickup in the ME race is for the Independent candidate, Angus King, to win and then choose to caucus with the Democrats.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Cross posting from SA I wish there was a source for this but it would be interesting to know more about:
quote: The GOP has been dependent on gerrymandering, corruption and election rigging to win even states that used to be their strongholds. In the 2008 election it was coming out that Georgia and a few other states rigged the vote so hardcore that Obama lost by impossible numbers in some places. However since Obama won by so much he didn't really care and everyone just wrote Georgia off as "lol racist" and moved on. In the 3 months leading up to the election you are going to see the administration work to repeal all the voter suppression laws GOP passed in the past 2 years AND going after gerrymandering. Notice he is waiting until AFTER the GOP primary to do it this is nice because they seem to be not following the new laws they passed anyway during primaries giving him more fuel. I think that Obama would have a shot in a fairly districted Texas with all the minority and youth voter suppression repealed. Obama is also going to have a shitload of lawyers on hand to watch southern states like a hawk.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you don't think Democrats gerrymander as hard as the Republicans do you are woefully mistaken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you don't think Democrats gerrymander as hard as the Republicans do you are woefully mistaken.
You got data for that?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dennis Kucinich lost his primary battle against another long time Democratic incumbent. Like his zaniness or not, Congress just lost a strong liberal voice, which I'm not thrilled about.
That is very sad indeed. With Feingold gone as of 2010, the idealism of congressional Democrats has taken a huge hit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you don't think Democrats gerrymander as hard as the Republicans do you are woefully mistaken.
Because they don't have a choice. It's inherent to the FPTP system:
Yes, Blayne. I understand how gerrymandering works. I am asking for data to support BB's assertion that both sides do it equally "hard". I would not be surprised that they do; I would just like to see the numbers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My point is that it doesn't matter if they do it "as hard",its a fault with the system not the party.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: I'd be happy to find numbers later, but it's a bit difficult while I'm at work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No hurry.
Blayne, certainly it is a fault of the system - or an advantage depending on the circumstances. That is not why I am interested in the numbers.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm confused as I thought my convo was in parallel.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I wasn't able to find any stats, but I was very surprised to see the Supreme Court basically ok'd the practice as long as it didn't harm racial or minority groups.
There are numerous news stories out there though that I was able to find in a quick search that go both ways. Democrats want to redistrict Illinois, Republicans want to redistrict Texas, etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even that provision is only because of the Voting Rights Act.
I think it's also important to note that Democrats in California were largely responsible for pushing the non-partisan redistricting committee that is considered the fairest in the nation. Not everyone gerrymanders.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pres. Obama affirms his support for same-sex marriage.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Pres. Obama affirms his support for same-sex marriage.
About darn time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh no now the old evangelicals won't vote for him
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Pres. Obama affirms his support for same-sex marriage.
About darn time.
Evolution doesn't happen overnight. And sometimes you have to de-evolve before you can evolve back.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Pres. Obama affirms his support for same-sex marriage.
About darn time.
Evolution doesn't happen overnight. And sometimes you have to de-evolve before you can evolve back.
Yes, it was almost certainly a political move.
Don't care, provided he takes actions in regards to his current stated position.
Some would call that cynical. I call it pragmatic.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Some would call that cynical. I call it pragmatic.
Politically expedient opinion changes are "pragmatic leadership" in those we ideologically support and "craven pandering" or "flip-flopping" in those we don't? I mean, I find it a little ridiculous that the same Democrats who eagerly parroted (not saying this is you, necessarily) Axelrod's talking points about Romney's "lack of a core" are now so anxious to point to Obama's "pragmatic evolution" on same-sex marriage.
As for what actions he will take due to his newly evolved opinion, the leaked statement from his interview makes it clear that this is strictly a symbolic gesture. He still supports a federal solution in which states work out, individually, their own definition of marriage.
<edit>GOProud makes an interesting point; if Obama truly had the courage of his new convictions, he should have come out in favor of gay marriage last week, when his announcement could have had an actual impact on the NC amendment battle. That he didn't indicates to me that his position change is less about political courage, and more about political risk-reduction.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it is possible to discern (not all of the time but some of the time) when a politician is changing position because he has learned something new and when he is changing position because it is politically expedient. One of the clues is when they acknowledge their former position and explain how they reached their current one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh no now the old evangelicals won't vote for him
Not to mention the state of Utah. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it is possible to discern (not all of the time but some of the time) when a politician is changing position because he has learned something new and when he is changing position because it is politically expedient. One of the clues is when they acknowledge their former position and explain how they reached their current one.
It seems to me that the primary determinant or whether a politician's position change is attributed to political expediency or whether it is attributed to something more personal is whether <edit>one agrees</edit> ideologically with the candidate's new position or not. Obama's "evolution" matches almost perfectly Romney's change in position on abortion. I think that people who (rightly, IMO) explain Romney's evolution as political expediency but Obama's as a courageous, if pragmatic, decision are deluding themselves as to their own objectivity and ability to discern "true" conversion from the more political sort.
<edit>To be clear, I believe Obama's current position more closely approximates his true one than what he'd previously purported his position to be. I think he made the (politically advisable) choice when moving to the national stage to supress his support for gay marriage in order to improve his electoral chances, but that now that the mean voter has been shown in several polls to hold a pro-gay marriage stance the political motivation to lie about his position has disappated, allowing him to be more honest with the public.</edit>
[ May 09, 2012, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... his position change is less about political courage, and more about political risk-reduction ...
Seems like the slogan of the Obama presidency sometimes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Here's the issue I have with that. Super PACs are legal. I wish they weren't, but they are. Until they're made illegal, I'd rather use them until they are made illegal.
Ahem:
Here's the issue I have with that. Waterboarding is legal. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Until it is made illegal, I'd rather use it until it is made illegal.
If Obama HAD said, "Super PACs are killing the ability of regular citizens to meaningfully engage in our democracy, and I will not take a cent from them," I would have almost certainly voted for him regardless of any other political stance he might have taken.
More than ever, we need a moralist government. By "moralist" I mean people doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. That means not engaging in torture or wiretapping even though such methods have (allegedly) proven effective in protecting American lives. That means refusing the money of special interest groups even if it means shortening your re-election chances.
Mr. Squicky is right about the President's campaign funds:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh no now the old evangelicals won't vote for him
The question is, will it hurt him in the conservative minority areas?
It could, if their priests push the issue, but I doubt they will.
[ May 10, 2012, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it is possible to discern (not all of the time but some of the time) when a politician is changing position because he has learned something new and when he is changing position because it is politically expedient. One of the clues is when they acknowledge their former position and explain how they reached their current one.
It seems to me that the primary determinant or whether a politician's position change is attributed to political expediency or whether it is attributed to something more personal is whether <edit>one agrees</edit> ideologically with the candidate's new position or not. Obama's "evolution" matches almost perfectly Romney's change in position on abortion. I think that people who (rightly, IMO) explain Romney's evolution as political expediency but Obama's as a courageous, if pragmatic, decision are deluding themselves as to their own objectivity and ability to discern "true" conversion from the more political sort.
<edit>To be clear, I believe Obama's current position more closely approximates his true one than what he'd previously purported his position to be. I think he made the (politically advisable) choice when moving to the national stage to supress his support for gay marriage in order to improve his electoral chances, but that now that the mean voter has been shown in several polls to hold a pro-gay marriage stance the political motivation to lie about his position has disappated, allowing him to be more honest with the public.</edit>
So your first paragraph doesn't apply to you? Everyone but you is subject to delusion?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So your first paragraph doesn't apply to you? Everyone but you is subject to delusion?
I don't think I suggested that in what I wrote, nor do I believe that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. In your first paragraph you dispute the ability to discern whether or not a politician's position is politically motivated or not. Then, in your second paragraph you give your opinion on the President's motivation.
Did you mean that only liberals were deluded?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. In your first paragraph you dispute the ability to discern whether or not a politician's position is politically motivated or not. Then, in your second paragraph you give your opinion on the President's motivation.
Did you mean that only liberals were deluded?
I'm fully comfortable with the idea that I may be wrong, both about the issue and about the President's motivations. Obviously I don't think I am, but it's happened before and it would be irrational to think it couldn't be the case now.
How about you? Can you admit the possibility that you might be wrong?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wrong about what? That it is sometimes possible to discern a motive for a political change?
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I think Romney's actual positions on gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration and a host of other issues are actually more moderate than he made out during the primaries. I think he was hiding, at least officially, his actual views on those issues to get through the primary.
In much the same way, Obama has pretty obviously been a supporter of gay rights, but felt that he couldn't get elected supporting gay marriage in 2008. I'm frankly not sure he can do it in 2012. I doubt that it will help him in swing states.
Here's Lincoln in 1858:
quote: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Was Lincoln a massive racist who hated slavery, or was he hedging his views to stay within the public mainstream and to avoid being labeled a radical (or whatever they called radicals 150 years ago).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh no now the old evangelicals won't vote for him
The question is, will it hurt him in the conservative minority areas?
It could, if their priests push the issue, but I doubt they will.
Honestly: this move is as clean a calculation as you could possibly make. The question was not whether Obama was pro-SSM; he always was. The question was when would be the most advantageously positioned timeframe to make a Historic (re)Coming Out in favor of SSM as sitting president.
And this is really the time, in the wake of North Carolina going out of its way to prove that it's not quite not the south (good job NC!) and engaging in some collateral damage stripping of rights from incidental non-gay groups of people just to make the statement that they thought it was important to make sure gays knew they were extra super not allowed to have the marriages they already couldn't have.
He "loses" the vote of people he was never going to have the vote of, and "stirs the anger" of a group that is kept amped on a pathological diet of anger and apocalyptic cultural 'warfare' as an exhausting status quo (Limbaugh states on his show that Obama is engaging in a war on traditional marriage; his first, second, third and fourth wives unavailable for comment) and was never going to abate, and he stirs up the approval and incentive of progressives to shake off their disenchantment and get back to the task of dragging us kicking and screaming, morally, out of the 19th century and the pathological fears of older, entrenched bigots.
As for the question as to whether or not this will hurt him; no — it's a dropping of pretense against a group that you neither need nor want the support of; a bloc of americans who will begin dying off over the next couple of decades and ensuring that history sees Obama as a president who signed up again (albiet late) against a group that couldn't wait to sweep themselves into the dustbin of history alongside the anti-miscegenationists.
Meanwhile, I will be off drinking the bitter tears of Freepers and "defenders of traditional marriage" — so, we all win.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Here's the issue I have with that. Super PACs are legal. I wish they weren't, but they are. Until they're made illegal, I'd rather use them until they are made illegal.
Ahem:
Here's the issue I have with that. Waterboarding is legal. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Until it is made illegal, I'd rather use it until it is made illegal.
If Obama HAD said, "Super PACs are killing the ability of regular citizens to meaningfully engage in our democracy, and I will not take a cent from them," I would have almost certainly voted for him regardless of any other political stance he might have taken.
More than ever, we need a moralist government. By "moralist" I mean people doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. That means not engaging in torture or wiretapping even though such methods have (allegedly) proven effective in protecting American lives. That means refusing the money of special interest groups even if it means shortening your re-election chances.
Mr. Squicky is right about the President's campaign funds:
Darn right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wrong about what? That it is sometimes possible to discern a motive for a political change?
Could your beliefs about the balance of political and personal motivations behind Obama's various stances on gay marriage be wrong?
I guess you haven't stated what your opinions actually are about the President's motivation, merely suggested that you can discern "true" conversion from a more political sort. I've assumed you believe this is an act of bold, courageous leadership, made largely because he finally accepted the moral rightness of the pro-gay marriage position. I wonder whether you would be willing to admit the possibility that your discernment has been colored by your own partisan biases.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wow. You can discern Pres. Obama's heart but not mine. Apparently. Stop assuming.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for the question as to whether or not this will hurt him; no...
I think this is an open question. Obviously, it's not actually going to sway any minds -- but there are a lot of bigots in a lot of purple states, and turnout is going to be the issue in the next election. (Speaking as a Wisconsinite, for example, turnout will be the only determining factor in the upcoming special recall election, as the electorate is perfectly split right down the middle and no one is polling anywhere near "undecided.") If the Republicans can fan the flames of religious resentment and ugliness enough to get the bigots to turn out in droves to "protect marriage" or whatever it is they think they're doing, that'll help; Democrats don't have a similar wedge issue to rely on, and cynicism about their party's failure to roll back the wedgiest of Bush's intrusions into civil rights and/or morally questionable acts of war might well keep some of the most idealistic at home.
If that's the case, this is going to be a very ugly election season, as the winningest strategy will be to demonize your opponent in order to drag people to the polls out of fear.
I think Obama is hoping that he can win back his base through half-measures like this that don't require him to repudiate (or even attempt to publicly justify, since that'd require publicly discussing) his Bush-in-sheep's-clothing economic and military policies. But he does need to weigh that against the risk of waking up the Republican base.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wow. You can discern Pres. Obama's heart but not mine. Apparently. Stop assuming.
Does anyone have a spoon? This conversation is delicious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If the Republicans can fan the flames of religious resentment and ugliness enough to get the bigots to turn out in droves to "protect marriage" or whatever it is they think they're doing, that'll help;
quote:I think Obama is hoping that he can win back his base through half-measures like this that don't require him to repudiate (or even attempt to publicly justify, since that'd require publicly discussing) his Bush-in-sheep's-clothing economic and military policies. But he does need to weigh that against the risk of waking up the Republican base.
Yes. Speaking only for myself, the biggest reason there's a chance I wont vote for Obama is because of Obama, not because of Mitt Romney. And if it were to happen it would be me not voting for Obama rather than me voting for another candidate.
[EDIT: calrification: I'd vote, but my motivation would be coming from the negative rather than the positive]
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think, with the possible exception of some Mormons, there is no one on Earth who is going to vote for Romney without actually thinking of it as a vote against Obama. There are other Republican candidates for whom that might not have been true, but the selection of Romney pretty much guaranteed a "not-Obama" platform.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh no now the old evangelicals won't vote for him
The question is, will it hurt him in the conservative minority areas?
It could, if their priests push the issue, but I doubt they will.
Yeah, I think this is an interesting question. I've read compelling reports that Obama's election was a key contributing factor to Prop 8 passing here in CA; record turnout among black voters, and black voters overwhelmingly favored Prop 8, much more so than any other ethnic group.
That being said, I kind of doubt it will be enough of a wedge to seriously impact his chances with most black voters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:this is going to be a very ugly election season, as the winningest strategy will be to demonize your opponent in order to drag people to the polls out of fear.
It will be even uglier because words like 'socialist' and 'bigot' are being tossed around by people in general (as opposed to just the politicians).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, I've been willing to call people opposed to gay marriage "bigots" for a decade. And "socialist" isn't actually an insult. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wow. You can discern Pres. Obama's heart but not mine. Apparently. Stop assuming.
Sorry. I shouldn't have cluttered my response with unnecessary speculation. Would you be willing to admit that your ascription (whatever that may be) of the President's motivations may be influenced by partisan biases which cause it to less accurately reflect reality?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It will be even uglier because words like 'socialist' and 'bigot' are being tossed around by people in general (as opposed to just the politicians).
They supposed to be equivalently insulting descriptors? Hee.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure. Of course, my guesses are not dissimilar to yours. Are you a big Obama fan, too?
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the President has been somewhat more forthcoming about his changes in opinion and more ready to explain them. If Gov. Romney has been as open about the changes in his (various) opinions I have not seen it and would appreciate a link.
There are also indicators in the President's personal history that could indicate something other than cold, political calculation but I imagine there is plenty of that, too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I've been willing to call people opposed to gay marriage "bigots" for a decade. And "socialist" isn't actually an insult.
Depends on whose mouth is saying the word.
EDIT: Tom, do you accept that calling someone who opposes your point of view a bigot-- even a general, nebulous someone-- is adding to the ugliness of the political debate?
[ May 10, 2012, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I disagree with your characterizations of Obama's "forthcomingness". He left it to Eric Holder to talk about why the administration's position on military tribunals changed (a justification which clarified less than it obfuscated). He has yet to speak about what shifted in his opinion on the Afghanistan War, from one that should be prosecuted to one that no longer should be. His position on international trade ("I'm going to renegotiate NAFTA" to signing Columbian and Korean free trade agreements) is another area he's flip-flopped on with no explanation.
In this case, he provided some vague pablum about discussions with his wife and meeting gay servicemen and women, which served more as a vehicle for pointing to his role in ending the unpopular DADT policy.
Romney, on the other hand, has been quite open about the personal reasons he initially supported legal abortion (the tragic death of his brother-in-law's sister due to an illegal abortion), and why his opinion changed (a personal interaction with a stem-cell researcher who, Romney felt, took an overly callous approach to the killing of embryos). You might feel these explanations are disingenuous and are an attempt to elide political motivations (I tend to), but saying he hasn't been forthcoming about his changes of opinion seems a bit farcical to me.
But I imagine my opinion on the matter is colored by my biases as a strong supporter of Romney.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I imagine it is, too.
I was speaking of the President's forthcomingness on this particular decision. There are plenty of his positions I wish he would explain better.
I appreciate (as I said I would) information on Gov. Romney's positions. Do you have links?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, to be fair, I've been willing to call people opposed to gay marriage "bigots" for a decade. And "socialist" isn't actually an insult.
Depends on whose mouth is saying the word.
By this logic, every descriptor is an insult. I hear that some are contributing to political ugliness by calling Romney a "Mormon."
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Here's the issue I have with that. Super PACs are legal. I wish they weren't, but they are. Until they're made illegal, I'd rather use them until they are made illegal.
Ahem:
Here's the issue I have with that. Waterboarding is legal. I wish it wasn't, but it is. Until it is made illegal, I'd rather use it until it is made illegal.
If Obama HAD said, "Super PACs are killing the ability of regular citizens to meaningfully engage in our democracy, and I will not take a cent from them," I would have almost certainly voted for him regardless of any other political stance he might have taken.
More than ever, we need a moralist government. By "moralist" I mean people doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. That means not engaging in torture or wiretapping even though such methods have (allegedly) proven effective in protecting American lives. That means refusing the money of special interest groups even if it means shortening your re-election chances.
Mr. Squicky is right about the President's campaign funds:
I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for the continued use of wiretapping and extraordinary rendition. It has been a constant disappointment to me with the Obama administration. While I believe your analogy is uncharitable, I acknowledge your point. I'd love to have a moralist by your definition. But I've become so cynical with the partisanship that I'm more prone to compromising on my values than I'd like. I won't defend wiretapping or torture, but I just can't find personal motivation to attack the administration for using a Super PAC. If you can convince me that it's immoral to a similar degree as torture, maybe I'd change my tune. Until then, I'm more concerned about the substantive differences between the candidates than their mutual shortcomings.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:By this logic, every descriptor is an insult.
I should have been more specific-- there, I was talking about the term, 'socialist.'
quote:I hear that some are contributing to political ugliness by calling Romney a "Mormon."
Really? Where?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Better ask some other mormon, mormon Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Man. YOU are a supremely convincing proponent of your point of view! You are super effective!!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In the pokemon of internet debates, I'm flying electric type, it's true!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
This is terrible to say but the effects of the super pacs will be more devastating to the liberty of the US than the effects of water boarding. If there is a false equivalency it's because super pacs are much much worse.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
This is terrible to say but the effects of the super pacs will be more devastating to the liberty of the US than the effects of water boarding. If there is a false equivalency it's because super pacs are much much worse.
That's what I don't buy. Super PACs have the potential for drastically marginalizing the influence of an average voter to a wealthy special interest. More than that, they have done this. But not all special interests work to the disadvantage of Americans. I believe the potential for Super PACs is devastating, but keeping waterboarding as a legitimate interrogation technique sets a precedent that I'm far less comfortable with should water boarding become standard practice in interrogation.
I doubt we'd get to that point, but so long as it is a legitimate extreme it moves the goal-post on what's acceptable up to the point of waterboarding. Police may now do a generalized strip searches during processing, digital privacy is under constant assault, the TSA continues to gain power, immigration laws are being passed which are an upfront to the 4th amendment. But it's all okay, because it's not as bad as it could be. So long as water boarding is legitimate, it makes it easier to argue that everything less drastic than water boarding is also legitimate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
This is terrible to say but the effects of the super pacs will be more devastating to the liberty of the US than the effects of water boarding. If there is a false equivalency it's because super pacs are much much worse.
That's what I don't buy. Super PACs have the potential for (and have) drastically marginalizing the influence of an average voter to a wealthy special interest.
Super-PACs have marginalized the influence of an average voter who is not a part of any politically-minded groups, and chooses not to donate to any ideologically aligned organization. Right?
And they've allowed this marginalization to be done by wealthy special interests other than, you know, a fabulously wealthy individual, who already had the ability to be a one-man Super-PAC. Right?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
This is terrible to say but the effects of the super pacs will be more devastating to the liberty of the US than the effects of water boarding. If there is a false equivalency it's because super pacs are much much worse.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Is that a double post separated by 30 minutes? Bizarre!
I hope you aren't caught in some sort of terrifying paradoxical time loop, Scott.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Unless it's like Groundhog Day. That might not be so bad.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I would say there is a false equivalency between water boarding and using Super PACs. Even if Waterboarding is legal, I don't believe it has the supposed benefits that proponents claim. While it may not be torture by a textbook definition, the effect of Waterboarding is the same as if the person were tortured. Testimony derived by torture is notoriously unreliable whereas the benefits of using money in elections are easy to see.
This is terrible to say but the effects of the super pacs will be more devastating to the liberty of the US than the effects of water boarding. If there is a false equivalency it's because super pacs are much much worse.
That's what I don't buy. Super PACs have the potential for (and have) drastically marginalizing the influence of an average voter to a wealthy special interest.
Super-PACs have marginalized the influence of an average voter who is not a part of any politically-minded groups, and chooses not to donate to any ideologically aligned organization. Right?
And they've allowed this marginalization to be done by wealthy special interests other than, you know, a fabulously wealthy individual, who already had the ability to be a one-man Super-PAC. Right?
This actually highlights what I mean when I'm trying to say Super PACs aren't that bad relative to other problems.
Even if we remove Super PACs we still have a political system dominated by two major parties that marginalize independents and third parties. We also still would have a system where wealthy individuals can self-finance their campaign at obscene levels.
I'm not saying Super PACs are good, I'm just saying when both viable candidates (a problem unto itself) use Super PAC funding, I look to other points of divergence.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Using SuperPacs and winning may get the Right to realize backing them wasn't a good idea and may predictably turn against SuperPacs while conveniently forgeting their Karl Rove's brain child.
Since being absolutely toxic and holding terrible positions dating back to the Jurrasic can't possibly be why they lose it has to be Obummer's eeeevvvvvvil SuperPac's backed by George Soros and the Gays and the Communist Party.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm glad we can always rely on you to be the voice of wisdom and civility, Blayne.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Is that a double post separated by 30 minutes? Bizarre!
I hope you aren't caught in some sort of terrifying paradoxical time loop, Scott.
Nope-- just an iPhone. I hit the back button 30 minutes after posting to refresh the thread, but instead, it reposted. I didn't feel like picking at the tiny buttons on the screen to edit then delete my post, so I left it there as evidence of my non-habituation to mobile-phone browsing. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Is that a double post separated by 30 minutes? Bizarre!
I hope you aren't caught in some sort of terrifying paradoxical time loop, Scott.
Nope-- just an iPhone. I hit the back button 30 minutes after posting to refresh the thread, but instead, it reposted. I didn't feel like picking at the tiny buttons on the screen to edit then delete my post, so I left it there as evidence of my non-habituation to mobile-phone browsing.
Dude, right? I actually had a double post and thought Dan was referring to me. I thought, "But I deleted it, didn't I?" Then when I saw your post without my response I thought I deleted both of them. The posts haven't been particularly long, but when written on the phone...
Also, the "Report Post" link being within range of my fat thumb when going for "quote post" has resulted in many panicked attempts at hitting the "stop" button.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Hah! Didn't even occur to me, what with my not having one o' them newfangled smarty-phones.
Vadon, "Report Post" takes you to another page before you actually report it, so your attempts to stop it could probably be less frantic. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Apparently the Republicans in Wisconsin tried to run Republicans as Democrats to force the Democrats to have a primary challenge in the recall election.
Fortunately they were defeated in their attempt to usurp democracy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That was to be expected. It probably cost the Dems money, though, which was the point.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Apparently the Republicans in Wisconsin tried to run Republicans as Democrats to force the Democrats to have a primary challenge in the recall election.
Fortunately they were defeated in their attempt to usurp democracy.
What now? Do you mean besides the marquee race? Cause I'm pretty sure Kathleen Falk isn't a Republican.
It's intersting that the energy for the recall was Walker's assault on unions, but Falk, who was supported by the major public employees unions, couldn't defeat the more establishment Tom Barrett in the primary. The tentative youth/labor comity around the Occupy movement and the protests last summer really doesn't seem to have had lasting political impact.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He is talking about the Democratic primaries for the state Senate and Assembly.
I see. I can understand the tactic of fielding candidates in order to delay the election an extra month, but it sounds like a few of the Republicans actually committed money to trying to win the Democratic primary. To me, that seems like a pretty silly thing to do, and speaks either of a lack of coherent planning/thought, or to a surfeit of unbridled enthusiasm.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You see "tactic" I see "trying desperately to see how to outdo your last act of contempt for the rule of law."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The tentative youth/labor comity around the Occupy movement and the protests last summer really doesn't seem to have had lasting political impact.
I wouldn't say that. Falk was, IMO, considerably the weaker of the two major candidates; that she had some union support was the only thing keeping her in the race. (Also, the protests last summer had nothing to do with the Occupy movement, which here in Madison also didn't have anything to do with labor.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yanno, it's not like I was ever a fan of romney to begin with, but stuff like this moves me from bemusement to just actively really think he is .. yeah. No. Don't like him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Republicans moving to make the suicide pact over the super committee into a murder pact of where instead of defense being cut it's just social security and social spending.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, Blayne. I love Jon Stewart, too, but could you at least "dress up" the stuff you lift from The Daily Show? Or attribute it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Kate, I don't think you're in the target demographic for "Zero Punctuation" or the other one on the Escapist... um... oh right, "Movie Bob."
Anyway, they have game reviews and movie reviews, respectively, from people Blayne looks up to.
I only mention it because whenever games or films come up, Blayne invariably parrots opinions he heard from those two sources... sometimes attributed, often not.
So what I'm saying is, this isn't really new. The Daily Show is just presumably his current events "review" of choice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:I think Obama is hoping that he can win back his base through half-measures like this that don't require him to repudiate (or even attempt to publicly justify, since that'd require publicly discussing) his Bush-in-sheep's-clothing economic and military policies. But he does need to weigh that against the risk of waking up the Republican base.
Yes. Speaking only for myself, the biggest reason there's a chance I wont vote for Obama is because of Obama, not because of Mitt Romney. And if it were to happen it would be me not voting for Obama rather than me voting for another candidate.
[EDIT: calrification: I'd vote, but my motivation would be coming from the negative rather than the positive]
Hobbes
I'm glad to hear you'd vote. One of the chief problems with the current electorate and crop of candidates is that voter turnout is poor. Were voter turnout higher, regardless of how they voted, the field of candidates would benefit greatly, as would we all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If turnout was 100% Congress would shift so far left that the Democrats could implode into different left and center left parties and the Republicans would still be forever shut out of power.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate, I don't think you're in the target demographic for "Zero Punctuation" or the other one on the Escapist... um... oh right, "Movie Bob."
Anyway, they have game reviews and movie reviews, respectively, from people Blayne looks up to.
I only mention it because whenever games or films come up, Blayne invariably parrots opinions he heard from those two sources... sometimes attributed, often not.
So what I'm saying is, this isn't really new. The Daily Show is just presumably his current events "review" of choice.
This is pretty disengenuous and unnessasarily so; sure I like Bobs movie reviews because I enjoy the process of his reviews regardless of the review. IE: *How* not the *What* but I hold vehement disagreements with him on virtually everything else though it would be unreasonable to expect you to know of my posting elsewhere on this subject; it IS however equally unreasonable for you to automatically assume that I automatically agree or parot everything I see or hear from the people I "look up to" whatever that means man.
It is just the case that I actually get my American News from the Daily Show and Colbert with follow ups on Wikipedia and Al Jeezeirra; the remaining 50% of my news comes from seeing any interesting current events threads from the Debate and Discussion portion of Something Awful, which is 50% of my links and some from SDN.net.
Sometimes it provokes discussion, but not always.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Blayne, why don't you diversify your news sources a little. Or at least acknowledge your source in the post. Otherwise it gives the impression that you as trying to pass off as your own the information that most of the people here saw on the Daily Show last night.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've begun posting from my phone fairly often, when I'm home I usually have added links and quote blocks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know how you can stand posting from your phone that often. I tried it last week and found it to be a huge pain in the butt.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because people are just wrong on the internet and my distaste for fat fingering my phone is outweighted by my obsession with arguing with the internet.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On another note, a recent defense policy article I read said that Norway is the only first world nation likely to increase defense spending in the next two years.
And they have all those flags already built in...
Makes you wonder.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
My brother-in-law is Norwegian and despite being eligible for citizenship for some 15 years now he's never done it.
Why not? I'll tell you why: He knows something we don't.
Think about it.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
So...why is it that those colors are so commonly used on flags, anyway?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some sort of symbolism? I know a lot of African flags have black, red and green in them for purely symbolic reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Terry Jones, Quran-Burning Pastor, Hangs Barack Obama Effigy Outside Florida Church
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yep. Let's give him the attention he deserves, that is none at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I disagree. You don't ignore something like that, you speak out against it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I disagree. You don't ignore something like that, you speak out against it.
If he wants to burn effigies until the dogs come home so be it. If he actually threatens the president pay attention. If pundits get involved or legal action is contemplated he has an open and shut case and can easily obtain money by mischaracterizing the situation and calling himself a martyr. He has a history of these stunts he will drag this out until it stops being talked about whereupon he moves onto the next stunt. Railing against him is what he wants. If we ignore him then he will escalate or stop. We win if he stops he gets arrested if he escalates. So we win then too. It's probably a foregone conclusion this will be publicized so the cat's probably out of the bag.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He already has plenty of publicity. I just want the conservatives here to know who is fighting on their side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Railing against him is what he wants.
This is so seldom true; even when it is, it is irrelevant. If what he is doing is hateful, bigoted, and propagating a discriminatory viewpoint, then it doesn't matter if it is a 'stunt' — give him ALL the attention he wants. Publicize what he is doing. Speak against it. Make sure the whole world knows quite clearly exactly what we think of his views. The more he 'wants us to bite,' the more he should be bitten — and, by association, any who won't distance themselves, those social forces which remain complicit with his brand of hate.
he only ends up being a helpful tool in moving us forward away from him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: No conservative here counts this man as an ally.
Sam: There will never be a drought of hate long enough to starve this man. Sure we can ostracize those who side with him but by and large he is counting on being reviled and hoping those who listen to the right (not political right) news outlets will send him support. I have nothing but contempt for what he does. But I think trying to use he media to sckoosh him is to use gasoline to put out the fire. You'll never pour enough at once to put it out. Let his stupid effigy burn out and fade away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The point is not to starve a man, it is to starve the popular, comfortable transmissibility of ideas. You do not respond to toxic social ideas with passivity and silence and comfort and room to grow. You confront it, and make it be known in the discourse of the day for what reasons we rightfully revile his ideas, as opposed to just leaving his narrative sung without challenge and no clear and open opposition. A man like him does not get to control the discourse by acting like he 'wants the attention,' no matter the attention he gets.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't they? They should. They promote the same ideas, support the same legislation, and vote for the same people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: He already has plenty of publicity. I just want the conservatives here to know who is fighting on their side.
"I think it's despicable. I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."
-Hillary Clinton's reaction to "Death of a President", an award-winning mockumentary about the assassination of George W. Bush
<edit2>Snideness aside, the thing that bothers me about this sentiment is the desire to judge the party by the extremists who wish to associate with it. The Westboro church doesn't represent Baptists (let alone Christians or the religious), al-Qaeda doesn't represent Muslims, and Terry Jones doesn't represent Republicans. I imagine you feel the Republican party welcomes or condones or at least winks at the overt racism and hatred of Terry Jones and his ilk, and I'm sure Sam can bring his list of racists who spoke at CPAC to prove the point, and there's certainly a kernal of truth to all that. But by the same token, it's true that the deranged Occupiers who wanted to blow up bridges and buildings in Ohio because of how much they hate corporate America also reflect an ugly reality within the Democratic party. Focusing on the extreme voices, attempting to convince the other side that they should be ashamed of themselves because of a small minority of bad actors, is not only unconducive to open and honest dialog, it is, I feel, small-minded and demonstrates a lack of generosity of spirit.</edit2>
[ June 08, 2012, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I am sure it would be worth casting a few eyes at the Baptists if they responded to the issue of the WBC ... with silence.
Throw 'em under the intergenerational bus, enjoy the thump.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not suggesting that consrvatives in general approve his methods. Just his goals.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not suggesting that consrvatives in general approve his methods. Just his goals.
I could make an identical statement about the militant Occupiers. I don't however believe that such statements are useful, or morally positive. To me they seem to stem from the worst part of ourselves; the grasping need not only to demonstrate our own moral superiority, but to wallow in the moral inferiority of others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not suggesting that consrvatives in general approve his methods. Just his goals.
WHICH of his goals do you think are generally approved of by conservatives? You'd have to match it up to a very exacting quote of the guy's intended policy, or whatever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly he opposes ssm and doesn't want Barack Obama to be president.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He may also drink milk!
Honestly that's a wide, wide net to cast for guilt by association. You would need to talk more to the issue of core motivations, logic about positions, justifications for his means, etc.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"[/i]If he wants to burn effigies until the dogs come home, so be it. If he actually threatens the president, pay attention. If pundits get involved or legal action is contemplated, he has an open and shut case and can easily obtain money by mischaracterizing the situation and calling himself a martyr. He has a history of these stunts, he will drag this out until it stops being talked about whereupon he moves onto the next stunt. Railing against him is what he wants. If we ignore him then he will escalate or stop. We win if he stops, he gets arrested if he escalates. So we win then too. It's probably a foregone conclusion this will be publicized, so the cat's probably out of the bag.[/i]"
So what's DonaldTrump done this time?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: He may also drink milk!
Honestly that's a wide, wide net to cast for guilt by association. You would need to talk more to the issue of core motivations, logic about positions, justifications for his means, etc.
Why? I am not saying they are the same or that they like or approve of them. I am saying that, at least about ssm, they are on the same side and working for the same thing.
We didn't like Stalin but he was our ally.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We didn't like Stalin but he was our ally.
Right. And he's still your ally, isn't he, Kate? I mean, both of you support an expanding state, so, even if you have different methods, your goals are basically the same by my broad interpretation.
I think Sam and Peter (it is Peter, right? Tired of typing out your whole screen name) are right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well no. Stalin is dead. Beyond getting rid of Hitler, we didn't share any goals. So no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy." I forget where I heard that right now, tip of my tongue, but no. People working towards common aims are not at all necessarily friends, allies, or even neutral or apathetic with respect to one another. Stalin certainly never considered us an actual ally, so how on Earth could he be one to us?
Anyway, as others have said, this 'common goal association' thing is a pretty problematic stance for you to take, kmbboots. Unless you're willing to respond with peaceable agreement when someone trots out things like that for your positions-or do you think there aren't despicable lunatic fringes who could be associated with you, if the only standard we're using is this one?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Right has a greater obligation to denounce and deny those ostensibly campaigning on "their side" whose views are genuinely despicable even to them than the left is because of a long standing systemic imbalance in how the Right favors human rights abuses and war criminals within its ranks to fight the "common fight".
Pinochet's right hand man for instance works in a senior position in the CATO institute; the right has generally never denounced these people or their regimes that they signify, while on the left for every academic who allegedly is an apologist for Mao or Stalin there are rooms full of academics ready to criticize them.
It is more important for the right to denounce its fellow travelers because it generally doesn't ever do so.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We didn't like Stalin but he was our ally.
Right. And he's still your ally, isn't he, Kate? I mean, both of you support an expanding state, so, even if you have different methods, your goals are basically the same by my broad interpretation.
I think Sam and Peter (it is Peter, right? Tired of typing out your whole screen name) are right.
<edit to remove an argument that may have led the discussion in an emotionally unnavigable direction>
As for the name, I usually prefer Senoj as a shortened version of my screen name, although you're right that it's Peter in actuality.
[ June 09, 2012, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Don't know if Dan is being serious or trolling but the goal of the 'left' isn't to expand the state, that has never been the goal; only an acceptable means to achieving greater egalitarian utility. If it could be reliably be done by making the state smaller there wouldn't be this discussion; but evidence says it cannot be done (re: China for a state with little to no safety net) by making the state smaller so that only leaves one alternative.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Senoj it is, then!
I missed whatever you edited, but if it was also targeted at me, you probably didn't need to edit it. I wouldn't have been bothered. If you were letting me know you thought my post stepped over some sort of line (inferring this from Blayne's post because it looks like he may have seen yours pre-edit)... you may well have been right!
Kate, I apologize if my crack about Stalin offended you. I don't actually think you're ideological allies Stalin in any meaningful way. But I do think that your criteria for what might make groups into allies is woefully wrong.
(Blayne: I don't think I was "trolling," though my argument was certainly facetious.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Dan-
No, I don't think Blayne's was in response to mine. I was trying to find a better example than Stalin of someone who ostensibly shared some of Kate's values but who, if the values were judged based on the character of that or those individuals, would indicate the values were offensive.
I removed my post for two reasons: 1) if I'm making the argument that such assertions are morally and logically offensive, it would be poor form to make such an assertion, even if it was to serve a contradictory purpose in the discussion and 2) the particular example I chose is one which I've come to realize can be extremely hurtful to some people, and I didn't feel the rhetorical point was worth the risk of possibly offending anyone's feelings in this particular way.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Dan-
No, I don't think Blayne's was in response to mine. I was trying to find a better example than Stalin of someone who ostensibly shared some of Kate's values but who, if the values were judged based on the character of that or those individuals, would indicate the values were offensive.
I removed my post for two reasons: 1) if I'm making the argument that such assertions are morally and logically offensive, it would be poor form to make such an assertion, even if it was to serve a contradictory purpose in the discussion and 2) the particular example I chose is one which I've come to realize can be extremely hurtful to some people, and I didn't feel the rhetorical point was worth the risk of possibly offending anyone's feelings in this particular way.
Ah, gotcha!
Yeah, I agreed with what I thought you might've said to me for similar reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Dan-
No, I don't think Blayne's was in response to mine. I was trying to find a better example than Stalin of someone who ostensibly shared some of Kate's values but who, if the values were judged based on the character of that or those individuals, would indicate the values were offensive.
I removed my post for two reasons: 1) if I'm making the argument that such assertions are morally and logically offensive, it would be poor form to make such an assertion, even if it was to serve a contradictory purpose in the discussion and 2) the particular example I chose is one which I've come to realize can be extremely hurtful to some people, and I didn't feel the rhetorical point was worth the risk of possibly offending anyone's feelings in this particular way.
I think that would actually be a good exercise. I can't think of any of my allies in the fight for SSM that I wouldn't prefer over those on the other side. But I could be unaware of some.
Stalin is not a good choice because the only thing that we would have been allies over would be defeating Germany in WWII and I was not born yet. Had I been, he would have been my ally in that particular endeavor.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually Stalin was allied to France back in 1938; both had pledged to defend Czechoslovakia; but the French and British had backed out on it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I just had a very discouraging discussion with 2 otherwise reasonable and friendly people, both whom I consider friends.
I am tired of people, friends or not, flat out stating that because I don't agree with them about a political view, I MUST not "know" what they know.
My IQ is at least 30 points higher than either one of them, I research my own views fairly well, I don't assume everything I read from a single source is correct or unbiased. I read faster, and have been reading comprehension than both of them combined. My education level is at least 4 years above either one of them.
I don't mean that all of that makes me automatically right, or better than them.
But it does mean I am not mislead, or a moron, or brainwashed.
I JUST DISAGREE WITH THEIR CONCLUSIONS!
(not to mention that well over half of their "facts" were not factual)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am tired of people, friends or not, flat out stating that because I don't agree with them about a political view, I MUST not "know" what they know.
Oh man I love this. FAVORED VARIANT: "You could only possibly not be agreeing with me because you have not yet understood ____________ as well as I/we have."
Most common fill-ins for the insert-the-blank: free-market economics, the immorality of eating meat, the g.w. bush presidency, objectivism, marxism, the impending complete collapse of fiat currency, chemtrails, thatcherism, anarchy, men's rights advocacy, and current record holder, "israel's plight and history"
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I can't think of any of my allies in the fight for SSM that I wouldn't prefer over those on the other side. But I could be unaware of some.
Dick Cheney? Just kidding. In honesty, I went looking for examples of SSM proponents behaving badly, but the process made me feel dirty and so I stopped. If you feel strongly that you want examples I'll hold my nose and do it, but I'd prefer not to.
I'm wondering why you're selectively focusing on the SSM issue, though. I feel like my earlier provided example of the recently apprehended Occupy-inspired terrorists shows that there are people who (ostensibly) share your values, vote for your candidates, and support your legislation, but whose actions you wouldn't particularly like being forced (even passive-aggressively) to answer for. If you feel that tarring progressives with the bad actions of these individuals isn't right or nice or good or useful, what do you feel makes your analogous tarring of conservatives right, nice, good and/or useful?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't actually have to look for opponents of SSM behaving badly; they are everywhere. Sure. Go ahead and count Dick Cheney - tepid as he is. How is he behaving badly about this?
Good heavens! How far left do you think I am? The recently apprehended alleged Occupy terrorists are not progressive; they are anarchists. Do you think that I am an anarchist? Do you think that anarchists are voting for President Obama?
I am focused on SSM because it is a cause that is important to me and because Hatrack is one of the few places I find people who are opposed.
So keep trying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
for/against ssm is just way too loose for me to make DAMNING ASSOCIATIONS between this crazy pastor and all anti-ssm folks, ON THE WHOLE. What is productive, though, is picking through his varied poisons and finding those which the anti-SSM movement just refuses, mostly, to move away from. It goes back to what I pointed out before: You need VERY SPECIFIC worded statements from him on the topics, and then compare them to the drek that 'preservers of traditional marriage' typically rely on (bonus points if they keep asserting that gay is usually the result of abuse, or that gay marriage will harm traditional marriage, or that you have to have a mother and father or the marriage is suboptimal for some psychosexual/psychogender reason invented by NARTH-level pseudoscientists).
Then you've got something.
With this? No, not so much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why not? I think it is quite instructive to look at the people "around me" on an issue. If they are distasteful, I think that is useful information about the cause they are serving. Not that every good cause is served by only perfect people, of course, but looking for the where the drooling hate-filled lunatics collect is instructive.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kate, I'm not suggesting you approve the anarchists' methods, just their goals.
You can choose to rhetorically disassociate yourself from these young men, but whether they're "progressives" or "anarchists" is ancillary to the yardstick you gave above for judging their fitness as exemplars of the cause. Do they support the Occupy agenda? Yes. Do they want to see Mitt Romney elected? No.
These are some of your less savory fellow-travelers on the road to populist economic reform, whether you like it or not. If you don't feel it's fair to judge the morality of your economic legislative goals (as symbolized by the Occupy movement) by the methods of these Occupy sympathizers, I think you should afford others the same courtesy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Good heavens! How far left do you think I am? The recently apprehended alleged Occupy terrorists are not progressive; they are anarchists. Do you think that I am an anarchist? Do you think that anarchists are voting for President Obama?
That is, at best, as subtle a difference as the one between the opponents of SSM that frequent this board and the people you keep bringing up and damning them for allying themselves with. No one before this wanted to cast you into the same group with them, it's you who have decided to judge a group by the extremes, as well as judge for others what group they belong to. This example was brought up as counterpoint when you challenged someone to do just that to you. Now it's been done and it's a little late to cry foul. If you want to make your litmus test who they vote for, for president it's a little late but I'm sure we can accomadate. You really think no one whose both insane and outrageously immoral voted for Obama?
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep,
Yes. But I don't approve their goals. Progressives have different goals than anarchists.
Here. I will hand you a gift. I support unification of Ireland. I support Sinn Fein. This means that I can be counted as a ally of some people that have done some bad things in support of that goal. And people who still do bad things that are counter-productive. I need to take that into consideration when I evaluate my support of Irish independence.
Edit: Hobbes, it isn't at all a subtle difference. Anarchists aren't just "extreme" progressives. Should anarchists get the world they want, I would have to actually work against them. But all opponents of SSM want there to be no SSM.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
These ultra-conservative pastors aren't just "extreme" Christians. Should they get the world they want, I would actually have to work against them. But all opponents of traditional marriage want there to be SSM.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:And people who still do bad things that are counter-productive. I need to take that into consideration when I evaluate my support of Irish independence.
If this is really your entire point, then I agree. Looking around at the people with whom you share goals is a meaningful parameter with which to examine your goals. But one of the things you have decide is how much you care as it relates to how close you think your goals actually are. I'm aware of eco-terrorists, but it doesn't have a very significant impact on my support of enviromental concerns because I don't see them as being that close to me politically. What, I beleive most people, and certainly I, were objecting to was: a) You assigning other people to groups they didn't think they belonged to and b) Giving them moral responsibility for the actions of the fringe elements of the groups you'd assigned. If you want to discard both 'a' and 'b' then all of a sudden: we agree!
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being on the same side doesn't mean being part of the same group. We were on the same side as the Soviets in WWII; that didn't make us Soviets. Nor did I say that opponents of SSM were morally responsible for the actions of their more extreme allies.* I suggested that you** look around you and see what a good look at your allies might tell you about your cause.
*I do think that I bear some portion of moral responsibility for the actions of, for example, RIRA even though I heartily disapprove of the group and its methods.
**Assuming that you do oppose SSM. You may just be arguing this on their behalf. I don't think I know your position.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why not? I think it is quite instructive to look at the people "around me" on an issue. If they are distasteful, I think that is useful information about the cause they are serving. Not that every good cause is served by only perfect people, of course, but looking for the where the drooling hate-filled lunatics collect is instructive.
And if an individual somewhere advancing your cause almost to the letter engages in some hideous diatribe and does stuff like hangs bush in effigy, is it useful or fair for me to describe them as being essentially directly comparable to your position and means of advancing your aims?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. If they are advancing my cause and the diatribe is in support of that. If there are a lot of them who are hateful lunatics, it should tell me something about what I am supporting. This goes the other way too. If most of my allies are admirable, that says something as well. Of course it also depends on how important or powerful the allies are. Are we talking lunatic fringe or leaders (ministers, senators)?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Democratic candidate's son is caught teaching an undercover reporter how to commit voter fraud.
Kinda angry.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Democratic candidate's son is caught teaching an undercover reporter how to commit voter fraud.
Kinda angry.
First off- Project Veritas is a product of James O'Keefe. I don't have nice words to say about him.
Second off- I'm pretty ticked.
Edit: I gave some of my reasons for being ticked but removed them.
[ October 25, 2012, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, though, this is O'Keefe we're talking about, and the only group with the footage right now is WND. So grains of salt are required, here, before any outrage; he's certainly earned our skepticism.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)