With Santorum's withdrawal from the race, what was once inevitable is now assured: The race will be Obama and Romney.
Now we can start considering VP picks and race dynamics as the two candidates start hitting each other more directly.
Feel free to start posting here as the other thread winds down.
[ January 21, 2013, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I suspect Romney is going to pick up Paul Ryan for VP. He needs somebody with the appearance of conservative credentials, especially fiscal discipline and tax cut happiness. While I think Ryan's ideas on paper are ludicrous, he's smart enough to keep a cool head at all times, which gives him the appearance of wisdom. He's also viewed favorable by virtually all of the conservative base right now.
It will also give Romney some leeway in scooting to the center since Ryan can be his attack dog.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
His thesis is that we've got a race between a couple of cerebral egoists with no Bill Clinton-esque "I feel your pain" emotin' going on, and that all the lip-flapping about wanting a President we can have a beer with seems in practice to be taking a back seat to wanting a President who demonstrates "wisdom, strength, and intellect."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan would be a good choice, politically, but it's a horrible one. I've seen Condi Rice floated as an option, and I find that intriguing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the Veep-stakes: I think most speculation is pretty pointless. Recently there's been some movement away from Marco Rubio and toward Rob Portman both in the Insiders' poll and at InTrade. To me, that seems like a recognition that having Rubio on the ticket doesn't necessarily lead to a bump with Latino or Hispanic voters. But I think it's probably more likely that the pick, when it comes, will be someone not frequently mentioned on the short-lists that journalists are endlessly circulating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: Perhaps, but recently Romney had Ryan campaigning with him for about ten days. I expect that was very much a, "Lets see how well we like each other" period.
Tom: What you said definitely. Condi would definitely be an interesting choice. But for some reason foreign policy just doesn't matter to people as much as I wish it did.
edit: Romney can easily fill certain cabinet level position with wonks, and that's enough for most people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BB, Romney was also campaigning in Wisconsin (Ryan's home state) for some of the time, and Ryan had just recently endorsed him, both of which might be partial explanations for the recent joint politicking. A Ryan pick is certainly not impossible, but I don't see the evidence for Ryan as being any stronger than Christie or Ayotte or Haley or Rubio or Portman or any number of other prominent national Republicans who've spent time with Romney on the campaign trail during the primaries.
I agree that Condi Rice is an interesting potential pick, although I think we're still too close to her time in Bush's cabinet, and particularly her role in making the political case for and then administering the Iraq and Afghan wars for her to have an easy path to the VP nomination.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
BB, Condi has three things that are more important to Romney's campaign then her foreign policy experience.
1) She is a woman, and there is a strong resentment with many women and the whole--Birth-Control/Slut thing running around the conservative arena. This could offset it.
2) She is a minority. Her choice would crush much of the "Conservatives are Racists" arguments the left normally advances.
3) Unlike the last attempt to pick a conservative woman to get the disappointed Hillary voters--she is very intelligent. She will not be seen as some one two thick-witted to be President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The magic of Condi is that she allows Obama to hammer Romney with every foreign policy mistake made by Bush. Right now Romney can distance himself, but Condi's foreign policy experience leaves a BAD taste in the mouth of most Americans. Where was she on 9-11? Where was she on WMDs? What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I think the dangers of opening that pandora's box undermines her demographic strengths. After McCain picked Palin, what Romney needs more than anything is a humdrum no nonsense VP who can hold his or her own and stay OUT of the spotlight.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'd be frankly surprised if he didn't pick a woman. In fact, I'd be frankly surprised if, no matter what happens, we don't have a woman in the white house in this decade. It is clearly an idea who's time has come- judging from the not unserious candidacies of not one but two women in the last election cycle (jesting over Palin aside).
And Romney is going to be *seriously* hurting with women voters by the time this election comes round. Thanks in no small part to the idiocy displayed by the hard right this year on women's rights.
I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've heard that due to the demographics the day of two old white dudes on the ticket is over.
The republicans are in the position of where they NEED a female on the ticket as women have polled recently as to now supporting democrats twice as much as republicans, but every high profile one sans Palin or Bachmann is far too moderate and will make the base stay home on election day.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but most women are also smart enough to not vote for a woman just because she's a woman.
Remember when Tina Fey did one of her Palin impressions and tried to pick up the Clinton mantle, telling women to vote for her. And Amy Poehler jumped in to say that women weren't interchangeable, and she didn't want women to vote for her because she was a woman, but because she was awesome and just happened to be a woman? Goes something like that.
It still matters what the woman stands for, and most women wouldn't have voted for someone like Bachmann.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A couple recent news items:
Lawrence O'Donnell questions Romney's judgment due to his acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, then half-heartedly apologizes when it's pointed out that his understanding of the early Mormon church is largely inaccurate.
A Democratic operative and erstwhile DNC consultant Hilary Rosen touches off a political firestorm when she claims Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life". Lots of people, including the Obama campaign, immediately disavow the statements, but Rosen pushes back by blaming Romney ("look, Mitt Romney has brought his wife into this conversation") and playing the victim ("Instead everybody’s attacking me, that’s fine, attack me, but.."). Morecondemnation follows (except for Fox News commentator Greta van Sustern who defended Rosen while still disagreeing with her point).
<edit>More Democratic distancing, as DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and first lady Michelle Obama tweet their respect for mothers and all their hard work.</edit>
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I just want Gingrich on the cabinet, Secretary of State maybe. I would never vote for him as president, but the guy is smart, and would make a great adviser.
Christie as VP?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Romney's actually four years older than Kerry was in 2004. No denying he's more attractive, though Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A couple recent news items:
Lawrence O'Donnell questions Romney's judgment due to his acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, then half-heartedly apologizes when it's pointed out that his understanding of the early Mormon church is largely inaccurate.
A Democratic operative and erstwhile DNC consultant Hilary Rosen touches off a political firestorm when she claims Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life". Lots of people, including the Obama campaign, immediately disavow the statements, but Rosen pushes back by blaming Romney ("look, Mitt Romney has brought his wife into this conversation") and playing the victim ("Instead everybody’s attacking me, that’s fine, attack me, but.."). Morecondemnation follows (except for Fox News commentator Greta van Sustern who defended Rosen while still disagreeing with her point).
<edit>More Democratic distancing, as DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and first lady Michelle Obama tweet their respect for mothers and all their hard work.</edit>
I think both Rosen and Anne Romney have good points in that kerfuffle. Rosen is right that Ann Romney hasn't been a "working mother" in the way we often think of it, and while Ann Romney is right that being a stay-at-home mom isn't a walk in the park, Rosen's point has more to do with the fact that Ann Romney never struggled to put food on the table. She never had to worry about paying for child care, food, education, clothing, etc. In other words, she missed out on most of the traditional problems that working mothers have to deal with.
But I think Ann Romney makes a good point by saying she shouldn't be attacked for choosing to be a stay at home mom. They both agreed that not every woman has that choice, but the ones who do, and take it, shouldn't be attacked for it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think the part I like best is the irony of the privileged, successful, wealthy Rosen telling us we shouldn't accept Ann Romney's opinions about "what women think" because she's so privileged, successful, and wealthy.
Honestly, this is a total misstep on Rosen's part. She's right that the Romney's wealth meant Ann had more flexibility in choosing her life's work* but attacking the well-liked Ann Romney for being a SAHM effectively eliminates the Obama campaign's ability to continue pushing their "war on women" line, which (because of the recent PPP poll showing Romney lagging with women voters) has been their preferred strategy for the last week or so. In effect, while trying to hit Romney where he was bleeding Rosen not only missed, but she also provided his campaign with an effective counter-attack.
*Although Mitt and Ann's early married life wasn't all bread and roses, either; Tagg and Matt were both born while Mitt and Ann were still undergraduates at BYU and, if you believe Wikipedia, living in a basement apartment in Provo.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Romney's actually four years older than Kerry was in 2004. No denying he's more attractive, though
You know, I had a feeling this might be true, and considered looking up their ages before posting, but I decided that technical age or not, Kerry had (and has) a certain withered ghoulish aspect that Romney manages to avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
I agree with your conclusions, except that I think Christie's plainspokenness is actually the least of the reasons, the biggest one being that he seems pretty committed to his Governorship. He didn't run in the primary for the same reason.
Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
I guess it's worth mentioning that my impression of what conservatives want is largely based on rather odd sectors, so I don't really have my finger to the pulse of the conservative masses, per se. I bet SenojRetep will let me know how much of this is my twisted imagination of events vs. actual reality. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rosen 'apologizes':
quote:As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.
In effect "I'm right, you're wrong, but you're all making such a stupid deal out of this I'll say I'm sorry as a concession to your idiocy."
Also, she appreciates stay-at-home mothers because her PR firm is "full" of them. That doesn't even make sense.
I mean, I hate to be part of the great umbrage taking that our political discourse devolves to during campaign season, but I'm just astounded that as a partner in a high-profile Democratic political communications firm she could be so inept, defensive and un-self-aware.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
I'm not sure how far you're thinking back, or if you're thinking through just how hardcore the current crop of Republican conservatives are. Christie has the same position on gay marriage that Obama does. How well do you think that'll go over? And the fact of the matter is that most people, especially with today's media, tend to prey upon people who speak their minds in politics. Some people will love it, but the media will use it as a wedge against those who don't. Besides, you only have to look at Palin to see what happens to a campaign when the VP goes rogue.
quote:It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
Historically, Republicans over the last 50 years have respected the "it's my turn" argument a lot more than on the Democratic side.
But I think you might also want to consider the fact that Obama is favored by most to win, and he might not want to sacrifice 9+ months of his life on a campaign he's likely to lose. Plus, Ryan is pretty young. He has plenty of time, or to be the VP candidate that gets introduced to the nation and then comes out swinging in 2016 as the heir apparent.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I thought this article by Walter Kirn was great, both for the analysis and for the writing quality.
His thesis is that we've got a race between a couple of cerebral egoists with no Bill Clinton-esque "I feel your pain" emotin' going on, and that all the lip-flapping about wanting a President we can have a beer with seems in practice to be taking a back seat to wanting a President who demonstrates "wisdom, strength, and intellect."
Walter Kirn's article didn't seem to ignite any conversation, but John Harris makes a similar point here.
quote:The general election will pit one exceptionally self-contained, self-disciplined, self-motivated man against another with precisely the same traits.
Voters have a choice between two men whose minds gravitate to rationality and logic — both of whom have expressed disdain for the disorder and surliness that pervade modern governance.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
In the general election are they really just trying to reach republicans anymore?
It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
I see conservative democrats everywhere in my area, especially in areas that have high minority populations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
On the other hand, Stephan, a lot of minority conservative Democrats I know are unlikely to vote for anyone but Obama regardless.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
I'm not sure how far you're thinking back, or if you're thinking through just how hardcore the current crop of Republican conservatives are. Christie has the same position on gay marriage that Obama does. How well do you think that'll go over? And the fact of the matter is that most people, especially with today's media, tend to prey upon people who speak their minds in politics. Some people will love it, but the media will use it as a wedge against those who don't. Besides, you only have to look at Palin to see what happens to a campaign when the VP goes rogue.
I'll admit that I do tend to think that the current ever-popular cries of "most conservative/hard right extremist Republicans EVAR!" are a bit overblown, so that's probably coloring my thoughts on Christie. I think that on certain issues, like fiscal austerity, groups like the tea party have driven Republicans harder to the right, but that's an issue in which Christie and Ryan both have a pretty solid track record so far.
But I don't think that conservatives in general are monstrously more right wing on every issue than in years past. I think that on many issues, including things like gay rights, there's a pretty clear and steady upward trend of improvement that hasn't actually been reversed despite some histrionics on the left.
(For example, even while Republican primary candidates were falling all over themselves to be more anti-gay-marriage than the other guy, they were simultaneously doing contortions to one-up each other in the tolerance game by talking about gay staffers they had, not discriminating against gays, and similar.)
Again, I admit that I don't keep up much with public opinion polls, so I guess this could be the imaginary conservatives in my head. But I do occasionally keep up with online news sources that are generally characterized as strongly right wing, like PJ Media and similar, so I'm mostly talking about what I see from conservative commentators.
Re: Christie's bluntness, the thing is that he's much better at articulating why he is blunt than Palin has ever been. When people call him on his bluntness, he says stuff like this.
And it plays pretty damn well, seems to me. That doesn't look like a gaffe. It looks like a slam-dunk, at least to my admittedly biased perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
Historically, Republicans over the last 50 years have respected the "it's my turn" argument a lot more than on the Democratic side.
But I think you might also want to consider the fact that Obama is favored by most to win, and he might not want to sacrifice 9+ months of his life on a campaign he's likely to lose. Plus, Ryan is pretty young. He has plenty of time, or to be the VP candidate that gets introduced to the nation and then comes out swinging in 2016 as the heir apparent.
Yeah that's a good point too. If he doesn't run, nobody can say he lost.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
Really? I have seen no statistics that reflect this conclusion.
Now, I *have* seen statistics that say that if more democrats *voted*, Bush would have lost. But was a cohort of democrats actually decisive in Bush's two victories?
(This leaving aside the fact that yes, probably, in those few districts in Florida, if Bush had had zero democrats vote for him, he would likely have lost, and thus, lost the election. But anyway, that presupposes that Dems were only decisive in that one state).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank
quote:Yeah that's a good point too.
You continue to be a joy to argue against. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You too!
Let's not get too much love all over this politics thread, though. The Republican base wouldn't approve.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You get one shot at running for President. I think the last person who successfully ran after losing the General election as the nominee was Nixon, and that was following an assassination.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Do you think there's some legitimate, compelling reason for that, or is it just the way things shake out?
Is it just as simple as lack of confidence? As you said, you get one shot, and if you can't hack it then nobody expects you to be able to any better the next time?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Essentially, yes. You're not a loser if you don't lose. And who wants to go through that kind of thing twice?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
Really? I have seen no statistics that reflect this conclusion.
Now, I *have* seen statistics that say that if more democrats *voted*, Bush would have lost. But was a cohort of democrats actually decisive in Bush's two victories?
(This leaving aside the fact that yes, probably, in those few districts in Florida, if Bush had had zero democrats vote for him, he would likely have lost, and thus, lost the election. But anyway, that presupposes that Dems were only decisive in that one state).
Now when I said that, I wasn't taking the electoral college into account. But I distinctly remember both in 2000 and 2004 reading that more Democrats voted for Bush, then Republicans voted for the opposing candidate. I'm trying to find the data.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Still, that doesn't guarantee the conclusion you're drawing here about what would have been needed for Bush to lose. It's a fair assumption, maybe even likely, but not evident in anything I've seen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Essentially, yes. You're not a loser if you don't lose. And who wants to go through that kind of thing twice?
Adlai Stevenson not only ran in 1956 after losing in 1952, he wanted the nomination again in 1960, but was unwilling to campaign for it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Still, that doesn't guarantee the conclusion you're drawing here about what would have been needed for Bush to lose. It's a fair assumption, maybe even likely, but not evident in anything I've seen.
My point was more supposed to point out that for a republican to win, he would need to win over some democrats. It is why, contrary to what many hard-core conservatives believe, Romney would have more of a chance than Santorum or Gingrich to beat Obama. (Not that I think he will.)
Looking at 2004 shows me some interesting things though:
11% of democrats and 48% of independents voted for Bush. He had to appeal to a more moderate audience to win.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ann Romney has no more in common with most stay-at-home moms than PrincessAnne. Any cleaning, cooking, shopping, laundry, kid-watching, chauffeuring etc was by choice -- by preference rather than "Nobody else is gonna do it if I don't." And slumming is no more working than camping.
[ April 13, 2012, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Ann Romney has no more in common with most stay-at-home moms than PrincessAnne. Any cleaning, cooking, shopping, laundry, kid-watching, chauffeuring etc was by choice -- by preference rather than "Nobody else is gonna do it if I don't." And slumming is no more working than camping.
Who cares. I haven't decided if I am voting for Romney or not yet, but his wife and his financial situation has no bearing on it whatsoever. Once upon a time women were looked down upon for NOT staying at home and raising children.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Ben Romney (4th son) posted this status update to Facebook:
quote:A lot of people have been weighing in on my Mom lately, so I thought I would add my own two cents...I have one daughter, a 3 year old girl, and I feel overwhelmed most of the time my wife and I are raising her. Growing up, we never had a nanny or a "mommy's helper." Never went to daycare. When I left for school in the morning (after she had made me breakfast), she was there. When I came home at the end of the day, she was there. She drove me to HOURS of my sports lessons and competitions (baseball, tennis, basketball, etc), and was my #1 fan in the stands. She encouraged my musical interests, and cheered me on at my piano recitals and high school band concerts. I could go on and on. I was just one out of five, but always felt like I was the most important thing in her life. For my Mom to raise us 5 boys, the way she did, was, in my mind, the most demanding - and hopefully rewarding - work she could have done. Love you Mom, and thanks.
That sounds like pretty much exactly what I'd say about my mom (except the making breakfast bit; I ate cold cereal and I got it myself). The idea that Ann Romney doesn't understand what life is like for most mothers because she's rich is silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ben Romney isn't at all addressing the point Rosen made.
She wasn't saying stay at home mom's don't do anything.
But man, kudos to the Romney team and Fox News for dramatically creating a new narrative that fits their purposes. It was dumb of Rosen to give them the ammo, no matter how out of context she's being taken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even sure they believe that or not. The Romneys have successfully turned this from an attack on Romney's understanding of the Every(wo)man to an attack from liberals on stay-at-home moms. It was a brilliant parry, and a lot of people aren't seeing through it, in large part due to the media inaccurately reporting what Rosen said.
But I'm willing to bet there's some of that as well.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kate-
You're wrong. Stay-at-home motherhood is actually *less* of a 'luxury' today than it was 50 years ago. Many women stay home because it's the most cost effective way to provide care for their children.
It's great that wealthy, educated women can choose whether to stay at home or not, but the idea that most mothers _have_ to work to make sure their kids have food is a flat-out fallacy.
Also: "normal" moms is a pretty abhorrent formulation. I know you hated it when Sarah Palin was talking about "real" Americans. Don't be that.
Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
FWIW, just in the interest of bias disclosure (I think I've mentioned this here before), I know Ben and his wife quite well, and others of the Romney clan a bit.
*It could be worse; many people (including Sen. Hatch) thought they'd try to paint the Romneys as not "normal" because they're Mormon.
<edit>Also, just to rebut a minor point you made in passing, this wasn't a Fox News production. The outrage against Rosen was all over Twitter almost immediately after her comments, and the morning news shows all had significant pieces condemning Rosen's comments, all prior to the interview Ann did with Fox News.</edit>
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
And Mrs. Obama does?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
Oh I agree that Rosen made a comment that was far too easily taken out of context. For a professional politico, even good points have to be delivered well, or you might as well just shoot yourself in the foot.
And no, I still think both you AND Ben are missing Rosen's point. I think it's great that Ann Romney decided to be so actively involved in her kids' lives, but she still did it from a position of luxury. When mothers are stressing about the economy, and the message implied by Mitt that he should be getting from his wife, they aren't worried about the stresses of picking up the kids from soccer practice on time or making sure they get a healthy snack after school.
They're worried about having enough money to pay for braces, or sending them to college, or how to pay to feed them, clothe them, perhaps even to provide luxuries like the music lessons and sports equipment that Ben refers to in his post. Ann never had to worry about any of that. And THAT is the economic angle that Rosen is referring to. She's not talking about ANY of the stuff you are.
So I'm sorry, but the experience of the Romney's IS different from millions of struggling families who do have those worries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
And Mrs. Obama does?
Mitt claimed he got economic advice about the plight of women from his wife. So that's why his wife's opinions and credentials are in question.
President Obama never made that claim, so Michelle isn't in the hot seat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Kate-
You're wrong. Stay-at-home motherhood is actually *less* of a 'luxury' today than it was 50 years ago. Many women stay home because it's the most cost effective way to provide care for their children.
It's great that wealthy, educated women can choose whether to stay at home or not, but the idea that most mothers _have_ to work to make sure their kids have food is a flat-out fallacy.
Also: "normal" moms is a pretty abhorrent formulation. I know you hated it when Sarah Palin was talking about "real" Americans. Don't be that.
Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
FWIW, just in the interest of bias disclosure (I think I've mentioned this here before), I know Ben and his wife quite well, and others of the Romney clan a bit.
*It could be worse; many people (including Sen. Hatch) thought they'd try to paint the Romneys as not "normal" because they're Mormon.
<edit>Also, just to rebut a minor point you made in passing, this wasn't a Fox News production. The outrage against Rosen was all over Twitter almost immediately after her comments, and the morning news shows all had significant pieces condemning Rosen's comments, all prior to the interview Ann did with Fox News.</edit>
Do you not get the difference between being wealthy enough to not have to work and not being able to work because you can't afford day care because you never finished high school and can't get a good job? Apparently, the Romneys don't.
I really don't begrudge the Romneys (or other wealthy people) their good fortune. The problem lies when they pretend to be "just plain folks" or, worse, actually think that other people have it as good as they do. "Normal" in this context isn't to be emulated in this context.
[ April 13, 2012, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I get what you're both saying. I'm not trying to pretend that Ann Romney's running Ben to soccer practice is the same as Rosen's hypothetical single-mom waitress just trying to get by and keep her kids in clothes and food. If Romney's sole adviser on the economic issues women face* was Ann, that'd be a big problem. Luckily she isn't.
By the same token, do you get that Rosen's comments are part of a bigger narrative being pushed by Democratic leadership that the Romneys, because of their wealth and/or their values, just don't get what it's like to be a real American?
*It makes me wonder, though, what advisers on the issue Obama is listening to. Does he have a struggling waitress on staff to give him information on what it's like to be a lower-middle class woman during bad economic times? Or is he getting his cues from well fed, well coifed advisers like Hilary Rosen? Or, more likely, from advisers like David Axelrod?
<edit>Also, the Romneys are, from my limited interaction, "just plain folks." I mean, the first time I saw Mitt Romney it was while he was goofing off with his grandkids during a church meeting making silly faces to make them laugh. If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting on a "man of the people" act, I don't know why Obama's well-documented "just plain folks" affectations ("Hey Midwesterners, listen to me talk about how ya'll are hurtin' out here") would bug you more than the Romneys'.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wish you wouldn't conflate "real" and "normal". We are not suggesting that the Romneys aren't real. But they really don't seem to have a grasp on the struggles of...typical?...ordinary? middle class or poorer families. This isn't something fabricated by the Democrats, it is clear from what both Gov. and Mrs. Romney say themselves. It would be something if they at least recognized that they have been extraordinarily fortunate.
edit: It isn't the "homespun" bit that is the issue. It is the cluelessness. Neither of the Obamas grew up wealthy yet the talk about how fortunate they are to be where they are now and recognize that not everyone is so lucky. Instead of saying idiot things about how they understand poverty because they had to sell stock to pay for college.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think it's dense of you to think they don't recognize that. I think you're eating up a narrative that simply isn't true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did she not say that about college?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'll give a personal example. Mitt was the president of the Boston LDS stake. As part of this, he personally administered church programs in areas like Revere, Lynn, Somerville, and Cambridge with Spanish, Brazillian, Cambodian, and Haitian members and lay leaders. He saw first hand the economic challenges those groups of immigrants faced, and volunteered hours of his time helping keep people in homes, get people medical help, deal with drug and other substance abuse issues, and on and on.
You're assumption that you know enough to judge the Romneys as "out of touch" based on the sorts of comments they've made during a grueling national campaign is... I don't know what it is, but I find it disappointing and frustrating.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I have - in fact, what most people who don't know them personally have - are what they say during the campaign and the policies they advocate. That is generally how we judge candidates. It is what campaigns are for. So those of us who haven't hung out at their house get to know what we can about them.
I am sure lots of people who would make terrible presidents play with their grandchildren and volunteer at their churches.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am sure lots of people who would make terrible presidents play with their grandchildren and volunteer at their churches.
True. And there have been plenty of awful politicians who were "just folks".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not advocating for "just folks" people to be president. I prefer extraordinary people to be president.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I prefer extraordinary people to be president.
Me too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So those of us who haven't hung out at their house.
Also, for the record, I have never hung out at their house. I've never interacted with either of them socially, outside of noticing them when they attended church meetings. And, since it probably wasn't clear from my comment before, I wasn't a member of the Boston/Cambridge stake when Mitt was Stake President. When we got to MA he had already moved from that position to another volunteer position in the church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a bit difficult for me to understand an argument that the Romneys understand, in a personal way, the lifestyles of so-called 'average' Americans. Or to put it a different way, people for whom 'paycheck to paycheck' is, if not their daily reality, something that's not too far removed from their present?
The college remark is a decent example. For most parents who wish to see their children into college, there are only a few options. Ensure that their child does very well in junior high and high school, ensuring a chance at a scholarship and grants and such. Support their child while they take on serious debt. Or take on major debt themselves. And...those are really some of the only ways quite a lot of people will see their children past the doors of a four year university. Taking a 'loss' by sacrificing accumulated wealth isn't an option for many.
Now all of that said, the fact that the financial success of the Romneys isn't a good reason to bar them from the White House. Actually, other things being equal, I'd tend to want the one who has been seriously successful over the one who hasn't. But they're different. Had Democrats (or at least Rosen) not been so stupid in handling this, it could have been a toothy issue for when Romney inevitably attempts to connect on a personal level with voters.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
It still bothers me, Rakeesh. It seems similar to closed-minded Republicans who don't like Barrack Obama because he grew up in Indonesia, or had a Kenyan father, or because he's Ivy League*. He's "different", not "normal", not a "real" American. Some Republicans have taken this to an extremely virulent level, well beyond the relatively benign messaging of the Obama campaign, but at heart it's the same message: "don't vote for him because he's not like you."
I mean, I'm not blind. I know the Romneys are super-rich. They have four houses and a car elevator. They own horses and can afford to send their kids to expensive, private colleges. And I get that their vision could be limited by that. Personally I don't think it is, and I think most of what people draw on when making that inference is specious and driven by self-interested political marketeers.
*Speaking of the maybe inevitability of this ugly side of democracy, Romney's campaign has been dabbling in this same pool, portraying Obama as out of touch because of the time he spent at Harvard. <edit>And if I'm being honest with myself, I did not get similarly outraged over those tactics. We're all, to some extent, owned by our partisan identities.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again. The problem isn't that the Romneys are wealthy. The problem is that they don't seem to understand - they certainly don't acknowledge - that they are enormously privileged beyond the experience of most people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It still bothers me, Rakeesh. It seems similar to closed-minded Republicans who don't like Barrack Obama because he grew up in Indonesia, or had a Kenyan father, or because he's Ivy League*. He's "different", not "normal", not a "real" American. They take this to an extremely virulent level, well beyond the relatively benign messaging of the Obama campaign, but at heart it's the same message: "don't vote for him because he's not like you."
While all of these things share roots in a fear of the other, they don't seem very similar to me aside from that. I'll explain why. First of all, America is supposedly founded on the benefits immigration and new perspectives bring us. We're proud, or at least used to be outwardly proud, of the so-called melting pot. Or at least, we used to be supposed to be proud of it. So attacks on that basis seem a bit out of bounds, especially because I simply don't credit (though that's no reason for you to believe it) that appeals to the Republican base criticizing Obama for his foreign experience are anything but fundamentally racist. Man, you start scratching at that piece of carpet and you won't be long from birthed conspiracies, and I don't see much reason to pretend otherwise. My antagonism to this certainly colors my reactions.
Given that fear of the other is the wellspring of so very, very many things about humanity I'm not really sure how reasonable it is to say two things are similar because they share that ultimate motive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
The problem too is that Romney plays into the narrative so often that it's not just the Democrats feeding it. Romney started it himself and the Democrats picked up and ran with it.
Romney keeps making stupid comments about firing people, having tons of cars, calling himself middle class and more. He's trying to be the everyman and it's utterly ridiculous because he's just so far outside the financial concerns of the average American. His blase attitude toward his own wealth suggests how disconnected he is.
I don't think, though, that he's some kind of robot monster. Your post about how he's a normal guy who plays with his kids does nothing to thwart what I'm saying, because at no point has anyone argued that he doesn't love his family, just that he doesn't really understand what it's like for a modern family, right now, to struggle financially.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, well said. I would add one thing. In addition to not understanding what it is like for a modern family to struggle, he doesn't seem to understand that he doesn't understand. If he would at least acknowledge that much, it would be a step forward.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Holy cow, if he ever came close to such an acknowledgment the Obama campaign would roast him until he was bubbling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"My family has been extraordinarily fortunate. I can only imagine the difficulties that families in the middle class are having. Here is how I want to make things better for them..."
Not sure what would be so roastable about that. It reads considerably better than, "I know what it is like to be poor because I had to sell some stock (that was given to me) when I was in college."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. That's not really politically feasible.
If he'd just stop making such boneheaded comments, I'd at least give him the benefit of the doubt on knowing that he doesn't know. But he just keeps spewing them out unprovoked and without warning, like an elitist jack in the box.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "My family has been extraordinarily fortunate. I can only imagine the difficulties that families in the middle class are having. Here is how I want to make things better for them..."
Not sure what would be so roastable about that. It reads considerably better than, "I know what it is like to be poor because I had to sell some stock (that was given to me) when I was in college."
Here's how that sounds:
"Hi, I'm Moneybags Mitt and I don't understand your problems at all. However, despite not understanding them, I've created a series of policies designed to solve them. Now, how's about voting for me?"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Holy cow, if he ever came close to such an acknowledgment the Obama campaign would roast him until he was bubbling.
"Every day of this campaign, I am out in the streets of America, meeting Americans and hearing their stories. I've seen the tragedy that this President's failed economic policies have brought against hard working Americans. I am told, daily, of the struggle people face. [Give specific anecdotal examples relevant to the rally-location.] I know that I do not face the same financial worries as many Americans in my personal life, but I make an effort every day to learn the difficulties Americans face so that on day-one of my Presidency, I can begin to solve the hardships Obama has brought against Americans and pave the road to prosperity. He claims to understand your struggles, but he is cooped up in Washington, listening to lobbyists who pretend to know what you face. I don't listen to those who claim to represent you, I listen to real Americans, who face real adversity, who want real solutions. I listen to you."
I think there's a way to spin it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree. Portraying himself as someone in touch with average Americans hasn't been a comfortable fit for Romney. He shouldn't bother. It just makes people mad.
ETA: In reply to Lyrhawn above.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Vadon, nicely worded, but I still think people would get hung up right where he admits he doesn't understand people's financial worries. It would be a sound bite played over and over in Obama's ads. Romney can't afford to throw a lob like that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I agree. Portraying himself as someone in touch with average Americans hasn't been a comfortable fit for Romney. He shouldn't bother. It just makes people mad.
ETA: In reply to Lyrhawn above.
I think the bigger problem is that it does nothing for average Americans who would probably vote for him anyway, and totally pisses off Americans who aren't likely to vote for him.
That's a net negative. You don't lose anything when you fail on any given issue to connect with your base, but when you galvanize the opposition, you're in the red.
I think this is a turnout issue, and possibly a wedge issue with some lower-income independents. And at this point I don't know what he can possibly do to thwart it unless he starts selling sob stories from his early married days, but I'm not entirely sure those stories even exist.
You're right though. Whenever Romney tries his aw shucks "I'm just like you!" routine, I cringe. He needs to change the subject, because that just isn't going to happen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:WASHINGTON -- Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."
The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes," and aired during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.
Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.
Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.
Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.
"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"
Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits.
Article has some foot in mouth bs moments but otherwise its been the GOP moving rapidly to the right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
CNN piece on Romney's work as an LDS Bishop. I know the Catalanos, the main subject of the piece, quite well. Also, the organist playing at around 1:25 is my wife. The stock footage was filmed during my ward's church services last Sunday (I'm never on camera, though, even peripherally).
Fanboy bonus, Judy Dushku (interviewed starting at 2:30) is the mother of Eliza Dushku. Eliza was a member of the Romneys' ward growing up (including while Mitt was Bishop), until she stopped coming to church in her mid-teens.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Eliza Dushku was Mormon? :mind blown:
Now I keep thinking of that outfit she wore on the episode of Doll House where she broke her leg riding the motorcycle. It reminded me so much of something from one of my brother's anime shows.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Eliza Dushku was Mormon? :mind blown:
Katherine Heigl, too. And Amy Adams and Ryan Gosling and Paul Walker and Aaron Eckhart. All of them have confirmed growing up Mormon, but have since stopped identifying with the church while still expressing some degree of affection for it (or what, growing up in Logan, UT we would have called "Jack Mormons").
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
President Obama, from the White House Correspondent's Dinner last night:
quote:What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The pit bull tastes delicious.
My question: how does he know the hockey mom doesn't?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can think of half a dozen ways to answer that in the theme intended without actually thinking about it, heh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Somebody remind me why politicians think they know how to manage our economy?
Apparently politicians need 'bailouts' too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the sake of focusing the various political discussions, I'm resurrecting this thread.
Don't feel constrained to post here if you'd like to start a different thread or what not, but I've seen a few different ones pop up and some of them derailed, so if anyone wants to keep it in one all inclusive place for the last two months, feel free to post here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, you weren't intimidated by the sheer power of Romney into not resurrecting this thread?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
My romney thread is going to get shut down and I'm going to get laid off and appear in attack ads about how you are definitely not the change we can believe in.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
son of a
parks i am logging you out for serious
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was thinking about buying all your political threads, making them take out big loans, and then pocketing the profit as I watch them collapse in misery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In what way would that not constitute, purely in moral terms, theft?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because it just wouldn't shutup! It's capitalism which by nature is good, and also just what Jesus wanted. Rich, powerful, self-interested capitalism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the free market wanted those threads to survive, they would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Couple decent speeches last night.
I liked Deval Patrick's energy (though he had some factual issues).
Michelle Obama gave what might be the best political speech of the last half decade. Impressive stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Her delivery was a bit halting, but it was a good theme, and more importantly I believed that she believed her words.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Michelle's speech was great.
Julian Castro was impressive as well, I thought. Although I have to admit I laughed at John Hodgman's tweeted joke about how the 2016 Dem convention will feature a keynote speech from "Esperanza Hitler-Borg."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is this the place to bring up the observations/criticisms that the mention of "God" was taken out of the Democratic Platform? Not only Fox News Channel, but also ABC News, has commented on this. ABC in fact asked if this meant the party had become "Godless." Even Fox did not go that far, they just kept asking why mention of God was left out.
The head of the platform committee, Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, tried to deflect this criticism (in the interview I watched) by first attacking Fox News Channel Network, and then by calling attention to the section of the platform that speaks favorably of faith-based organizations. But you would think it might have occurred to someone on the committee that leaving out the 2008 platform's mention of "God-given potential" [of everyone] would invite negative comment. Booker also said that platforms really don't matter that much. After all, he said, Romney does not agree with portions of his party's platform about denying abortions to victims of rape or incest. But that of course begs the question of why bother with a platform at all if it does not mean anything? At least Romney stated his disagreement.
A second criticism of the Democratic platform is the fact that the previous reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel was left out. By way of contrast, when Romney visited Israel recently, he explicitly affirmed that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. President Obama may speak glibly about America remaining an ally of Israel, but I think it is a pretty safe bet that the Israelis know who is really a friend of Israel. The only question I have about this is why so many American Jews still tend to vote for Obama and the Democrats.
A third criticism is that unlike the 2008 platform, the 2012 platform does not name Hamas as a terrorist organization that should be "isolated" "until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements."
[ September 05, 2012, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
As an atheist Democrat, I'm thrilled at the exclusion (whether its calculated or not).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As a Catholic Democrat, I am fine with that exclusion as well.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, these are political parties, not Religions. I understand that some on the right get confused by that fact.
As for Jerusalem, except for some evangelical belief that it sounds the way of the second coming, why should the US care what the capital of another country is?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: why should the US care what the capital of another country is?
You must be joking. There are tremendous political implications, and I have trouble believing you don't know that.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You are right Rivka. It is important to the US Government.
It is important to our foreign policy.
There are tremendous international political implications.
There are tremendous implications for the future of Israel, and for whatever non-Israel goverment/state/people live in Jerusalem, but why is it important to the average US citizen or US Political Party.
Certainly support for Israel is important--especially to Americans who are Jewish or Arabic. That could be in the platform.
But why should we put in an American political party's platform something about how another country settles their dispute with their neighbors. You, Israel, want Jerusalem as you God-granted capital. They, the Palestinians or Arabs in Jerusalem want it as their nearer-historically accurate capital.
If, heaven forbid, the Israeli population, tired of war, elect a government that is willing to trade Jerusalem as the capital for a true peace, why should American Democrats stand in the way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there are tremendous political implications for Israel. I think it's ridiculous that Americans should care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You, Israel, want Jerusalem as you God-granted capital. They, the Palestinians or Arabs in Jerusalem want it as their nearer-historically accurate capital.
Way to mis-state and oversimplify.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One correction: It was Senator Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) I heard interviewed on Fox News Channel who got so defensive at the question why the word "God" was left out of the Democratic platform, and reacted by attacking the network, then tried to say that platforms don't matter that much, anyway. (They've been playing snippets of that interview repeatedly on Fox.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm not touching the Israel issue - but why on earth is it important that politicians mention God as often as country singers do?
Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.
Some people are under the misapprehension that, to be American, one must also believe in a god. Particularly the Christian god. Particularly the version of the Christian god of the person who happens to be stating that opinion at any given time believes in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
What on earth are you talking about?
US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
quote: Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests. ... U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations. Regarding the status of Jerusalem specifically, President Bush had deemed Congress' role as merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority".[26] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress, such as the ones found in the Authorization Act of 2003 that included the Jerusalem Embassy Act's provisions, makes the arguments in favor of legislating foreign policy from Congress extremely problematic if not arguably invalid for that Constitutional reason.
Oh, wait...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.
Romney's position (if by position you mean recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) is the same as the official Democratic platform's position four years ago, as well as both parties' platforms at various times over the past 30+ years. Invariably (or, at least, in every case so far), when a President is elected on a platform that includes recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (as Obama was four years ago), they have then refused to act on the platform, citing (rational) geo-political concerns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One correction: It was Senator Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) I heard interviewed on Fox News Channel who got so defensive at the question why the word "God" was left out of the Democratic platform, and reacted by attacking the network, then tried to say that platforms don't matter that much, anyway. (They've been playing snippets of that interview repeatedly on Fox.)
That wasn't defensive; that was shutting down a stupid and irrelevant line of questioning. Sen. Durbin was fierce and absolutely right. I am proud that he is my senator (and also, that he attends my church when he is in town, good Catholic that he is.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the 'God' issue, referring to God in the party platform is a tradition of fairly recent advent (particularly for Democrats). Here are the total number of mentions* of 'God' in national party platforms for several previous years:
*A better statistic would be the frequency, given that platforms are much longer now than they were 100 years ago, but I only have so much messing around time.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Clearly, what we need is some sort of quantum superposition that lets both the Israelis and the Palestinians use Jerusalem as their capital.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Democratic National Convention has voted to change its platform to put back into it the sentence about "God-given protential" that had been in the 2008 platform, and also the sentence about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. It is always good to see common sense prevail.
I did not hear whether they added back the language calling for the continued isolation of Hamas unless it ceased supporting terrorism and accepted the right of Israel to exist, which also had been in the 2008 platform, but left out in the current one.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Ron, honest question - does the mentioning of God by the DNC mean that you'll now be likely to vote Democrat?
If not, then why does it matter?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Whoa, lookie there - the Democrats outscored the Republicans in God mentions from 1996-2004. I'm assuming that means that Ron Lambert voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in those years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It disappoints me that those of us whose potential was bestowed upon us by aliens will -- again -- be ignored by the Democrats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It disappoints but doesn't surprise me how willing social conservatives in this country are to insist that their party lie to them.
Trust in politicians is, across the board, low. Hardly anyone is ever really happy with them, and with few exceptions even the best loved politicians are graded on a different level of integrity. But Americans such as Ron insist on being pandered to, and their vote is cheaply bought (though this is true of many) by the mere mention of God in political life.
Of course it's also amusing because religious texts are rife with warnings to be wary of the person who uses the cloak of religion to achieve worldly power, but those advisements seem to be more guidelines. It's also strange that as more and more Americans come to identify with no specific faith at all, God (let's not kid ourselves, Christianity) becomes so much more central.
But anyway, just for fun, let's ask: Ron, why IS support for Israel so important to you? I know why it is, and I suspect more than few here do as well, but I am curious what you'll say.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Are they really just doing a vocal vote based on how loud people are?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
President Bill Clinton gave an excellent speech. If Dems follow his advice from a few months ago and lay off the personal attacks against Mitt Romney and his "sterling business record" (Clinton's words), and use the kind of arguments Clinton used in his speech--and the way he presented them--they might have a chance of winning. If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.
I look forward to the Romney/Ryan response to Bill Clinton's speech, to see how they counter his arguments.
Mucus, you raise a good point. It sounded to me like the "No's" were almost as loud as the "Aye's," all three times the chairman called for the vote. I saw one camara angle that captured the words "In the opinion of the chair, there is a two-thirds majority in favor of the proposal" on the teleprompter for the chairman to read; thus the outcome was a foregone, previously determined, conclusion. The whole thing sure looked confused and disorganized. No one seemed to want to call for a roll call vote, however, probably because of the length of time it would take. Cameras showed that Arab delegates from the Detroit area were loud in their opposition of returning the language from 2008 to the current platform.
It was reported that President Obama himself intervened and demanded that the "God" language and the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" language be returned to the platform. And reportedly he said (at least about the God reference) "Why was it ever taken out in the first place?"
Oh, Rakeesh--just caught your question at the last minute. You are probably wrong if you think you know why I support Israel. I honestly think of the Israelis as the good guys, our only reliable friends in the Middle East. I do not have any particular "prophetic" reason, like you probably associate with mainstream fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their view of end times prophecies differs from mine. I don't see literal Israel as being of any real significance in the prophecies of Revelation.
[ September 06, 2012, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Your predictions are as bad as your reading comprehension. If you disagree, feel free to go reread the brief list of them that were dug up and posted in your thread last week from the previous election.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if your support for Israel is in no way tied up with religion or prophetic claims for the future, then my mistake and I withdraw the accusation.
--------
Nutty coworker on Obama's supposed huge weakness: vague ill define remarks about how Obama looks 'really weak'.
Me: It's actually polling at a very close race, with Obama marginally ahead, and Romney suffering some serious gaps in some pretty important areas and states.
NC: That's all subjective.
Me: Yes, subject to who they will actually vote for.
Nutty Coworker on illegal immigration and healthcare-
Me: Yes, it is a concern, but studies have shown it may be a much smaller problem than people think.
NC: What're you talking about?! *heavy use of sarcasm and incredulous voice and widened eyes*
Me: *points to a study by Arizona's department of health that indicates nearly half of unauthorized residents may have health care through their employers.*
NC: Well that's subjective, and I know five illegals and none of them have health care, and all of them have a bunch of kids.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, yeah, Clinton. What a rhetorical god.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
It really isn't. Or more accurately, that isn't the sum of the matter. The foreign policy implications can matter a big deal. Especially right now, where Iran and Israel are poised for a serious altercation. It's little things like what was in your party platform that inform the otherside as to how you should be treated when you end up at the diplomats table.
It also opens and closes doors in what other countries are willing to do for you ala Israel's neighbors. We are not privy to these conversations, but President Obama's staff has certainly had to provide intelligence and advise to Israel as to how close Iran is to nuclear weapons, and what options they have insofar as including us.
Jerusalem being the capital of Israel in the platform might not be the foundational beam of that state of affairs, but it's just one more tick box. I'm also certain Obama is having frequent dealings with Israel right now, so little gestures like this assist the State Dept and NSA/CIA in coordinating with Israel, so that one day, it won't be the Joint Chiefs doing it in a military encounter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.
Ah, I see.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It also seems newsworthy to me in a different way.
The unreliability of having delegates just shout louder combined with the observation that the speaker does seem to be reading from a pre-determined script when he notices that the vote isn't what he expected (and then continues anyway) is just corrupt.
Politically, it may be a good idea to abuse democracy and screw over the non-religious and Arabs in that vote. But if you're going to pre-determine things, just kill the pretence and don't bother having a vote.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Quite right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, anyone loud enough could have presumably called for a roll call vote. But, then again, both conventions have been ignoring Robert's Rules this year.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.
If the Democrats continue to run this campaign the way they have so far, they will probably win. There has been no deviation in the strength of the current Democratic campaign versus Romney, and they've actually done a (tragically, ultimately) good job of learning lessons from Bush's campaign and they've co-opted the most effective lessons of a Roveian strategy: assault your opponent's strengths and turn them into liabilities.
Your predictions are, to a fault, terrible. None of the reasons that you have posited for Romney winning in a landslide are even remotely probable, and you keep ascribing vulnerabilities to Obama's campaign which are only about what you want to believe, rather than about what the numbers say. I'll dredge up a specific example from this campaign soon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
here we are.
Here we go:
quote: FNC reported that early estimates were that Ann Romney's speech produced a 24 point "bounce" for Romney, and Christie's produced a 10 point "bounce." We will have to wait for further polling in the next few days to see what lasting effect the speeches really had. Of course, conventions always give a multi-point "bounce" to the candidate. That will probably be most pronounced after Mitt Romney gives his speech Thursday night. But it looks like the ticket is off to a good start bouncewise.
This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooo...oooo...
I know! Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Zero, zilch, nada. Zip. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.
That's just an insane number.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Zero, zilch, nada. Zip.
Well, you're much (much, much, much) closer than Ron. Nate Silver estimates the post-RNC bounce for Romney as roughly 2 points, which fell significantly below his model's pre-RNC expectation of a ~4-point bounce.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What was his DNC prediction?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
CNN says 1%. Gallup says none at all.
edit: That was Gov. Romney's bounce.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Right, but remember that this is a question for Ron and Ron's followup assessment of his own predictions.
It is easy to think you are a good assessor of future events when you literally lack the capacity to analyze the shortcomings of your previous predictions.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I would first caution that it's very difficult to discern bounces this close to the events. Being able to differentiate between transient movement, spurious polls, and secular trends on a time scale of a few weeks is very tough, and so all bounce estimates should come with a healthy dose of uncertainty.
That said, the Pollster average would suggest that between the VP selection and the convention, the bounce was somewhere between 0 and 1.5 points (depending on whether you see the increase as part of a secular trend of improving Romney numbers extending back to February, or whether you view it as a temporary, transient effect). Silver had estimated that we should expect a bounce for Romney from the convention alone of about 3.5 points, and a similar gross bounce for Obama, which would be offset somewhat by the tailing off of Romney's convention bounce, leading to a net Obama bounce of about a point, tailing off by about a week after the convention. The estimate is necessarily quite noisy, because not only are there relatively few data points (only a dozen or so Presidential elections have reliable pre- and post-convention polling), there seems to be a trend in the bounce data itself, making the estimation problem that much more difficult.
<edit>Here's the Pollster estimates since mid-February when Romney turned the corner in the Primary. If I were making a narrative from the data, I'd say there was a period of a couple of months where he gained by consolidating Republican support, then a period from May until mid-August of relative stasis, followed by what is probably the front-end of a bounce, but may be futher movement toward Romney.</edit>
[ September 06, 2012, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.
That's just an insane number.
If Jesus gave a speech at the RNC, he would have been selected by acclamation immediately, and Romney's support would have bottomed out since he'd probably have pledged allegiance.
Jesus would ride the wave of popularity into office, whereupon when he actually started governing, his popularity would start to drop steadily, since he wouldn't conform to what anybody else thought. Also, he'd make a lot of people angry by flat our refusing to deal with them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Has anyone read "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (Jennifer Granholm ripped Romney for writing it in her DNC address today). Besides the fact that the title was chosen by the Times, not Romney (he'd asked for it to be titled "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry") the content bears only passing similarity to what Democrats, including the President, construe it as. Taking an imaginary quote out of context and using it to bludgeon your political opponent? Well, obviously there's something about pots and kettles here, and given that Republicans have ridden the "You didn't build that" meme pretty hard I can't complain too loudly, but it's still worth pointing out.
Really, though, I found these paragraphs from the OpEd particularly unexpected given how it's been portrayed:
quote:The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks... Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
<snip>
I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.
In the end, the difference between what Romney was proposing and what Obama did isn't really that great. Obama structured the bankruptcy by using federal money to buy auto company debt, which was different than Romney's proposal to use federal money to backstop private losses (which, according to some restructuring experts, wasn't very feasible). But the hit on Romney (and Granholm hits him hard) is doubly deceitful because (1) it misconstrues what he actually proposed and (2) Obama's course of action (which Granholm lauds) was broadly similar, if different in specifics, to what Romney actually proposed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Obama's speech in just a few moments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.
That's what I meant about not necessarily being feasible. However, I think your statement assumes that Romney's plan was provide federal money as a backstop, but if not liquidate. It may be (he's never clarified) that if it became clear that the capital wasn't there even with the guarantees, that a more actively managed bankruptcy (similar to what actually happened) would be a better choice. Maybe not, I don't know, but I imagine he's too smart to not see what a bad deal liquidation would be and not accept other potential alternatives, especially those that only marginally differed from what he was proposing.
Regardless, I think it's highly disingenuous of Democrats to portray Romney's position the way they do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.
Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I was not impressed by President Obama's speech. It was not nearly so persuasive as Bill Clinton's on Wednesday night. Obama indulged too much in building straw men, mispresenting the positions of Romney/Ryan. His claim that somehow Republicans are "betting against the American people" is patently absurd, since Republicans are the ones who exalt individualism over dependence upon the government. Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that there are some things government must do; the dividing line comes over how much, how intrusive into individuals' private lives government should be allowed to be.
I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this. What I base it on is the fact that a large portion of the electorate started out knowing very little about Romney, and at first the popular view of Romney was colored by the deliberate attempts of Democrats to demonize him and misrepresent his considerable successes in business (it was Bill Clinton who referred to Romney's "sterling business record" and said Democrats should not attack Romney on it). This tactic of personal attack has only worked somewhat up to now, but it is beginning to have an opposite effect, as more and more people learn who and what kind of man Romney really is. As the nastiness and untruthfulness of the Democrats' attacks against Romney become more and more apparent, that will lose them votes in a major way. This is precisely what Bill Clinton was trying to warn Democrats about.
Obama also repeated his cheap shot about Romney's giving offense to the Brits when he visited there just prior to the Olympics. Many experts had been expressing concern for a long time about security, pointing out that the security firm they hired did not have enough personnel. They also had a serious software problem right on the eve of the Olympics. Since Romney actually had experience running the 2002 Olympics, he should be respected as having the experience to know what he was talking about. The British should have listened to him as a qualified expert, and at least given a more intelligent response, rather than resort to nationalistic posturing designed to save face for the politicians involved. They were very lucky that nothing really bad happened.
I think that the Israelis were very welcoming of Romney, especially of his unequivocal declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Israelis of course as a matter of policy refuse to officially announce their preference between U.S. cadidates. But come on, everyone knows they would prefer Romney--they know they can count on him to really be on their side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And we must, of course, make it abundantly clear to Israel that we are come whatever may under any circumstances that we are on their side. ------ By all means, Ron, continue to predict a landslide loss for Obama. Perhaps when that almost inevitably proves to be incredibly, comically, predictably inaccurate the crow you'll be busy eating will keep you at the table and away from the computer long past November.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm curious, did Ron make a public prediction of the 2008 election?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this.
No, Ron. You are apparently also terrible at reading comprehension. I stated my question very clearly to the extent that it is mystifying that you have misjudged it so clearly and completely. I will put my question in bold and ask you to answer it again.
quote:This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just to be extra abundantly clear, I am asking you if you understood at all what the bounce percentage from the republican convention ended up being. I did not at any time ask you at all how you knew that obama would probably lose in a landslide against romney if they kept relying on personal attacks. I didn't ask you how you knew this because I know you know no such thing.
Anyway, you should answer my real question. Not the one you invented in your head.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
The "bounce" for Romney, was the second time in history (from what I understand, and obviously from the time of polling), that a "bounce" didn't actually happen. At all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.
Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?
Rakeesh, I think my complaint about taking things out of context stands regardless of the imagine/if/maybes in my analysis. The OpEd bears only passing similarity to the caricature of it the Democrats have drawn. Romney said the government shouldn't give the auto industry the bailout they asked for, an it didn't; it gave them a much smaller one. It says the auto industry should be made to go through a managed bankruptcy, and it did. It said that only by decreasing labor costs could the companies refer to profitability, and that's exactly what happened. In fact, it seems like the only parts of his plan that weren't implemented were the limitations on executive compensation and the increase in basic energy research. Funny, no?
Inferring that Romney would have let the auto industry go into Chapter 7 liquidation based on that OpEd (which is exactly what Democrats have done) requires a lot more stretching of the imagination than what I wrote. So I don't think your characterization of my analysis is very reasonable.
As to whether we should expect any better, I guess it shouldn't be disappointing that Democrats are "filling in those blanks" in a way that is intellectually dishonest but politically advantageous; politics is like that (on both sides of the aisle). What I'm realy disappointed by, or at least surprised by, is that after three years it took me reading the OpEd out of personal curiosity to realize how completely Romney's words had been twisted.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This article pretty much sums up the DNC for me...
When the writer started waxing sorrowful for the baby boomers, the pillars of our entire country, I stopped reading, and erased what I had read up to that point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, well your focus is a lot more specific than I realized, Senoj. I thought you were bringing in wider campaign statements and goals as well, not discussing just the OpEd and Romney's statements of the auto industry in this specific instance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's interesting that Peggy Noonan still persists in defining "extremism" as "opposition to the extreme position I hold."
Also, the idea that the Baby Boomers are holding the country together (and have been doing so for years) is pretty laughable, Geraine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Something about Peggy Noonan's persona makes me want to slap her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And they're doing it themselves, too;)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
... what the christ.
"partisanship" aside, when did Peggy Noonan become a loathsome anklebiting twit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1989.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:General George Armstrong Custer died in 1876, but that doesn't mean we should forget his legacy of slaughtering indigenous peoples.
That's why Republican National Committee leader and GOP lobbyist Pat Rogers has condemned New Mexico governor Susana Martinez for meeting with American Indians.
In an email sent to Martinez' staff, Rogers wrote—
"The state is going to hell. Col. [Allen] Weh would not have dishonored Col. Custer in this manner."
Allen Weh was a Republican candidate who ran against Martinez.
Rogers is the RNC National Committeeman for New Mexico and a recent member of the RNC Executive Committee. ProgressNow New Mexico is calling for his dismissal.
"Such a blatantly racist statement against our Native people is offensive from anyone, but to come from a national GOP leader and lobbyist for some of our country's largest corporations is indefensible. These e-mails show the contempt and disrespect New Mexico's Republican leadership has for our Native people. Unless they drop Pat Rogers immediately, we can rightly assume that those organizations he speaks for, including the RNC, Modrall Sperling and his lobbying clients, feel the same way."
On the other hand, maybe Rogers was just using "redist" ironically?
How bizarre. When on Earth did Custer ever establish a legacy of anything more than suicidally stupid arrogance and negligence?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here are the actual facts and figures that make it truly hard for Obama to run on his record:
“With the release Friday morning of the August job numbers, there are still 261,000 fewer Americans employed than when Obama became president. Almost a million -- 822,000 -- fewer Americans have permanent jobs.”
“Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: ‘No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.’
“But Clinton is wrong.
“Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his “stimulus” was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.”
“The middle and upper income jobs lost during the recession are being replaced by lower-wage jobs during Obama’s recovery. Middle income occupations accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost from the first quarter of 2008 to first quarter of 2010, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been in lower-wage occupations. While we have lost jobs in skilled construction, real estate, and supervisors, most new jobs are in retail sales and food preparation.”
“U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention.”
“The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.”
“The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000.”
“Friday's report was discouraging throughout. Hourly pay fell, manufacturers cut the most jobs in two years and the number of people in the work force dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.
“In addition to those who've given up looking for work, many young Americans are avoiding the job market by remaining in school. All told, the proportion of the adult population that's either working or looking for work fell to 63.5 percent.
“That's the lowest level in 31 years for the so-called labor force participation rate. The rate peaked at 67.3 percent in early 2000.”
Fox news has a conservative slant, so we don't have to believe anything they say. Find some different sources. Fun huh?!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I have a hard time believing that the Custer thing is not a hoax, satire, or some sort of tone-deaf attempt at a joke.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and by the way, not that you needed to, but that was another excellent example of a failure to answer a direct question about one of your (self) vaunted political predictions, Ron.
It's no wonder your pride in your predictive ability is so great, when you make it a point to behave as if they were never, ever proven wrong, even when people say and point out exactly why they were factually inaccurate.
(This, by the way Dan, is the sort of bul*%#€t I'm talking about. If you still stand by your claim that Ron is not the worst example of this garbage around here, that is.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Luckily they saved all those military jobs.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News Channel is the most reliable and informative news source because they do not censor and slant their news the way most other mainstream media sources do. Remember Chris Matthews of MSNBC saying that whenever Obama enters the room, he feels "a tingle down his leg"? Do you really want to get your news from news sources that sent hundreds of "investigative journalists" to Alaska for the sole purpose of trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, when she was picked by Senator McCain to be his running mate in 2008--and every, EVERY negative claim made about Palin was eventually proven wrong, with no retractions or apologies from such foresworn organizations as the New York Times?
What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You seriously think they sent "hundreds of investigative journalists?" Just for practical purposes, why not send, I don't know, 3? or 5? Hundreds would have tripped over each other, and been less effective than a small few skilled investigators.
Hint: this doesn't make sense because it's not what happened. The news agencies sent a few people. Not hundreds. Not even all together. Not even close.
As for your other claims, well, I don't know how to convince you you're wrong other than suggesting that you go out and learn something about journalism. I know you claim to be a journalist, but then that may be why I'm not surprised to hear you think Fox does journalism too.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Ron is an odd conundrum. He writes fairly well for the most part, which would hint at intelligence. Yet when you read the words and process their meaning the veil is lifted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Nice try, your Reagan numbers were based on the same rubric, so you either need to factor in those who were no longer looking for a job then as well as now, or you need to stick to the original numbers.
Further, Reagan's issue were stagflation, high unemployment, and a *much much much much* higher federal tax rate and corporate tax rate to toy with. Obama has high unemployment, low investment, high debt sluggish economy, with a rock bottom tax rate, that has nowhere to go but up realistically. But the economy by most account should only get stronger from here *unless* the government interferes, by say, letting the payroll tax cut expire, dropping the home owner's tax cut, ceasing federal subsidizing of student loans so they require payments while a student is in school, and repealing Obamacare with Vouchercare.
You know, rewarding the rich who paid for all their campaigns, while ignoring the middle class and poor who don't vote for them anyway.
I'm sorry, but I still clearly remember what happened from 2001-2008, and it was a stripping of our civil rights, rupturing of the economy, trillions of wasteful spending on the military industrial complex, and piss poor responses to Americans when they needed help (ala Katrina). I credit Pres. Bush for one thing, not standing in the way before Pres. Obama took office. But really the bank bailout was a foregone conclusion, you don't spend trillions of dollars and then let the banking industry collapse while talking about being a fiscal hawk.
Again, according to most economists, the economy should consistently improve if our current policies are pursued. This seems like the prime time for Republicans to rush in, try to scuff things up, get blocked, and then take credit for the economy growing again without having actually contributed to it one wit. But hey, the average voter is stupid anyway, they'll believe whatever narrative they spin to them via Fox News aka "We intentionally report incorrect party affiliation when Republicans screw up, but not vice versa."
I'll be damned if I'm going to let the guy who created much of the mess, back in right as most of the cleanup is being done, and then ride that horse for decades to come in every future election.
[ September 08, 2012, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Contemporaries of Obama who say he wants to start a revolution: truthful. Contemporaries who say that's absurd: lying.
Once again Ron's fundamentally dishonest way of evaluating politics serves to 'prove' the conclusion he already believed in. Shocking!
Still haven't answered Samprimary's question re: convention bump, Ron. It's not going to to away. Still haven't disavowed the lie you told with respect to the video, either. That's still on the books. Now I know you lack both the integrity and the guts to do so, but I wanted to take a moment to remind you.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Because everything one believes in college is still exactly the same as what one believes at 51 years old.
The fact that you're even predicting a 'race war' in 21st century America, Ron, shows how far off your ideas about the world really are. Plus, I guess in your head Obama's process goes: 1) Lose election 2) Start 'race war' 3) ?????? 4) Communism! Yay!
Uh huh. Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Hahahaha race war? Are you serious? Sooo, what's your Free Republic username?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Since you keep using Fox News, I'll keep using Snopes.
Obama was involved in exactly one case like this. Banks were already giving bad loans to white customers with similar financial situations, Obama's firm sued banks for discriminating based on race. The banks should have either stopped issuing bad loans, or issued bad loans to everybody not just white people.
That sounds fair doesn't it Ron? Banks were already issuing bad loans with teaser interest rates, then bundling them into credit default swaps and selling them off to other banks. What's wrong with making sure banks can articulate why they didn't give a loan to a black family when they gave the exact same loan to a white one?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
I am content to allow people to review the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Unlike you, who seem determined to tell everyone else what you think has been proven. Your whole argument is based on personal attacks against me. I am willing to allow God to be the final judge on who is more truthful and more perceptive.
Bella Bee, you may not think it is possible now. But consider the cultic following that Obama has. If he is the pathological narcissist that some expert observers have claimed he is, then there does exist a real danger that he might react badly to losing the election, so badly that he uses his "charisma" to stir up violence among his diehard supporters. I predicted this four years ago. My prediction is still quite possible of coming true. I hope Obama has better sense. But I am not certain that he does. If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
The question is, Ron, when it doesn't happen, will you remember that you predicted it? Will you admit that you were wrong and apologize for speaking ill of others? No? Thought not.
(By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of so many of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If there is a God, and it is a god of truth, then you should be frightened, because you are a liar, and because you have a liar's heart.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: [QUOTE] (By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Not far under the surface of the rabid neo-con platform is the sad truth, that most of these people hate America. But they need to "Love America" because "patriotic" is how they define themselves. Never mind their hatred of their countrymen and country. But, and not to automatically invoke any false-equivalences, that is common of any extreme viewpoint that elevates the self-worth of a narcissist- Michael Moore hates America about as much as Ron does. They love themselves, and here is no room for country or for subtlety in that equation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse?
No and no, actually.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Litigation against so-called "red-lining" by lending institutions, a practice which is illegal, did not, in any way, contribute to the mortgage bubble. Not in any way. Had you *any* understanding of these events, you would know that. You do not. Instead racist innuendo and blatant falsehood is all you have. This is quite sad- this whole line of reasoning is embarassing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
You lied about what was on that video. You lied about Democrats being able to embrace spending cuts. You're also now lying about your predictions for the Republican convention-you weren't just reporting the reports of others, you agreed with them and went on to add your own emphasis.
It's not snide to have contempt for your dishonesty and cowardice when you so plainly exhibit them. You can deny it all you like, and I know you will, because for whatever profoundly batty reason your own repetitions and assurances carry so much more weight than plain black and white quotes.
But *whenever* you have one of these discussions, you end up being the lone wacky voice in the wilderness. You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best. The more likely interpretation is simply that you're another partisan hack, a liar who vets reality on the basis of whether it conforms to his own agenda, and who believes it CANNOT be dishonest to carry the party's water. Well, it is, and what's more we all know it is. There's a reason people who don't conform to your partisan agenda recoil from your politics and predictions, and they do. They do here and wherever else you share them. It's because the only way you can appear both sensible and honest is to remain among the choir.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
No, you don't understand. LISTEN! Obama was involved in *one* suit against Citibank. Citibank was already handing out bad loans, of their own volition. Think of it this way.
Credit = A, B, or C Where A is great, B is moderate, C is crap.
Smith Family Credit = C | Smith Family Ethnicity = White
Johnson Family Credit = C | Johnson Family Ethnicity = Black
Smith families were qualifying for loans, without any issue. Obama's law firm agreed to represent a host of Johnson families who though they had similar credit ratings the bank was denying Johnsons loans. There's no empirical evidence that white people pay off their loans and black people do not. Nor could the bank adequately demonstrate that every Johnson family who applied for loans had substantially worse credit than the equivalent Smith family. So the bank was sued for unequal lending practices, and settled out of court.
And no, banks being forced to be fair in their lending practices is not what created the housing bubble, and the subsequent collapse. It wasn't Bill Clinton forcing banks to give loans to the poor. It wasn't even George W. Bush's fault, though he was president when the house of cards started falling.
Now, if you just found yourself agreeing with that last sentence Ron, then the only rational conclusion you must also make is that Obama's role in the crisis must equal to or less than Bush's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Do.
You.
Know.
What.
The.
Convention.
Bump.
Ended.
Up.
Being.
It is not a difficult question. You could give me a percentage, or you could say "no, i never followed up on that."
I will continue to bring this up until you can actually answer the question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
No. You ask that people remember not what you said, but your bizarre dishonest interpretations of what you said after the fact-when you can even be brought to admit you said something that even *might* have been a wild-ass absurd prediction, or an outright lie.
For example, you lied about spending and Democrats. You said they would never get behind spending cuts. It's a fact that you made that claim. You can and will lie all you like about it, but it was still said by you. And then when you were presented with factual evidence that Democrats CAN endorse spending cuts, even big ones, you suddenly had nothing to say.
So yes, we will remember what you say. We'll remember that in addition to putting forward comically absurd predictions about the future (Obama starting a race war, Romney winning in a landslide under any circumstances short of sudden major scandal), you're also willing and even proud to tell transparent lies and smugly claim they were true.
So you don't need to ask anyone to remember. The spectacle of you is memorable enough.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
Don't worry Ron, I will remember what you said because for whatever reason "Crazy" and "Insane" always tends to stick around for a longer period of time. Possibly it's because I joke about the discussions with friends, or maybe it just has a lasting impression because I get a kick out of seeing how crazy people really are.
Either way, I can assure you I will continue to remember what you said, and continue to think of you as a crazy person. Until Dec 21st of course, because then the other crazies say the world will end, and after that I won't have any memory of these forums.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best.
With an oddly large and engaged crowd on the sidewalk Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Romney thinks black people are only 3/5ths of a person?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well to be fair he *also* believes that part of the Constitution should be amended to change that to 1:1.
I did get a kick out of the following from Wikipedia,
quote:Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world," and said he "doubted whether anything short of it would do in America." In his "Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States," John Adams said "the English Constitution is, in theory, both for the adjustment of the balance and the prevention of its vibrations, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."
Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
For one thing, they're all dead.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For one thing, they're all dead.
That's blasphemy to talk about the founding fathers that way! Speaking about them like they're just normal fallible humans like everyone else. For shame.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Romney thinks black people are only 3/5ths of a person?
Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever. Both outlooks seem to me to require a LOT of squinting and tilting of heads.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Speaking about them like they're just normal fallible humans like everyone else.
Of course they aren't.
I told you: DEAD.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
So are most people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: So are most people.
A point.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever.
Maybe he was just trying to say in a round-about way that his political views can be changed by new evidence.
e.g. Romney 2012: My views are subject to an Amending Formula
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
For one thing, they're all dead.
They live on in Romney's heart.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
"um...well..."
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Sorry, that's my fault. I will refrain from publicly mentioning what I think about specific people.
There is something to be said though, that if someone says something that is a "crazy" opinion, they might not realize it if people need to coddle them and be PC. I won't mention specifics as I don't want to call anyone out right now.
For the record I think the same thing about people with their 9/11 conspiracies against Bush. Also many other "fringe" beliefs.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Overblown headline, but still funny:
Personally I was more shocked that something like 4% of "Liberals" think Romney killed Osama bin Laden.
As a member of the military for 11 years, I know where the arguments come from about people claiming "He didn't do it, the Seals did." and that's fine. If they want to have that position, whatever. I know it's wrong, but possibly they really don't.
The "Leaders" (Of which regardless of your beliefs or politics, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the Military) always get the short-end of the stick when an operation is successful. No credit, or little credit. Granted we all know they (including CO's etc.) weren't on the ground, but we ALSO know if the operation goes horribly wrong, the right would be screaming to high heaven about how Obama is a bad leader, and it's all his fault since he is overall in charge.
Now on that note: How could anyone who has followed any news release or hasn't been living under a rock for the last year think that ROMNEY would get credit for Osama? That's the part I just couldn't understand from that article.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
"um...well..."
Yeah, those were pretty much my thoughts on it as well. I've read up on 2016 a little bit, and I've yet to read a single thing that convinces me it's worth watching as anything but outrageous comedy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've seen a few of D'Souza's debates, and he strikes me as exactly the sort of intellectual who would, well, win acclaim from extreme right conservatives, though not quite as shamefully sleazy as Moore who I haven't been convinced actually believes what he puts out since I first encountered his stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really don't like Bill Maher, but even I had to *nod* during this exchange with D'Souza.
*Warning language.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow. D'Souza's recollection of the ACA debate is drastically different than my own.
And that's probably the biggest assemblage of cherry picking I've seen in a long, long time. He drops logical fallacies with every other breath.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney was actually the SEAL on the ground who punked Osama, presumably styling his chrome deagle with the side-grip fire and eating an 'iced cream' with the other. An invisible, generically genial killer. Know him from how he moves in the shadow, visible only by the soft glow of two strips of white side hair and the glint of a flag pin. There one second, gone the next, vanished like a picture on an etch-a-sketch.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Sounds like a fantastic headline, right - after all, who cares about what the rest of the world - (especially the French!) think about the POTUS.
Except the same poll found that Romney would make the US much more popular in Pakistan, The Middle East and North Africa. Gee, I wonder why that could be? It's probably that whole secret Muslim thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's hard not like Philadelphia mayor Micheal Nutter. Here's a clip of him trying to figure out what one of the higher ups in the Tea Party Express means when she says that President Obama doesn't love America.
---
edit: Honest question, are there representatives of the Tea Party, especially those elected to office, who people on Hatrack who support the Tea Party are proud of and consider exemplars of their movement? I've been to a couple of local Tea Party group meetings and was very unimpressed and the same is true from what I've seen of the more national Tea Party presence, but it is entirely possible that I'm not seeing the shining stars in the movement and I'd like to be fair to them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
I know some fairly intelligent people who honestly believe some wackadoodle things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You could be completely right, Matt. I'm really more just speaking to the impression I get of him as a person-in situations designed to the people appearing to put their face on. If I had first encountered him in print, I suspect my first impression would be quite different.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I really don't like Bill Maher, but even I had to *nod* during this exchange with D'Souza.
*Warning language.
That was satisfying. D'Souza is a terrible, terrible person. I mean, how can someone use "anti-colonial" as a criticism? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it helps to have been really thoroughly colonized.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Maher seems awesome here, is he usually this on the ball with the facts?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of back and forth today between Romney and Obama over the attacks in north Africa. Hard to say how the public will respond. I suspect Romney's "he's apologizing for America" line will go over well, despite the fact that Obama himself said nothing of the sort, and has been solidly angry in his responses.
I suspect Obama's outrage at Romney playing politics will also score points with his base.
Personally, I'm rather blah about the whole exchange. I knew from the moment the attack on the embassy happened exactly what both sides would say, and it's rather tiring having to actually listen to it.
ETA: This article clears up the timeline of what happened and how the political statements match up with it. It would appear that Romney is rather grossly misrepresenting what was said and when it was said, and what it means.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He is.
Charles Blow:
quote:The Romney camp should learn a lesson from journalists: wait until you have the facts. It’s better to be second and right than first and wrong. Knee-jerk reactions can make you look like a jerk. But after offending the British on his Olympics trip and labeling Russia our “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Mitt was already well on his way to proving that he is a diplomatic disaster. This week the Russian president, Vladimir Putin thanked Romney for the label, saying that it had helped Russia because it had “proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems.”
Yeah, thanks Mitt.
Dana Milbank:
quote:NBC News reported on Tuesday morning that Mitt Romney’s campaign was “throwing the kitchen sink” at President Obama: With prospects fading, the Republican challenger was trying any and all lines of attack to see what might stick. But the problem with throwing the kitchen sink is you might break a pipe — and then you’ve got a real mess.
His latest comments are something which go a little bit beyond what I would just go ahead and laugh at him for. He is showing the depths of concern that the country needs to have for a strategy of essentially lying, misleading, or otherwise jumping on any expedient political point to fire up conservatives — no matter the cost to concerns exterior to his bid to the presidency.
And, in this case, if it turns out to have been a hotly inexcusable comment that will only fly with the Ron Lambert level conservative apologia, work on the strategy of doubling down and never letting it go, until it right-out screws your horseshit campaign. On top of everything else his party (Akin and the War on Women, etc) could do to him.
Ah! he even gave the Smirk again too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Walter Jones is only moderate in the way that Ron Paul is moderate; he has crossover appeal for social liberals because of his libertarianism. But his libertarianism also puts him at odds with things like the Civil Rights Act, and creates a natural constituency for him of white supremecists (see also: Ron Paul's newsletter scandal).
To be clear, I'm not familiar with the radio show in Samp's link, and generally I've found that things posted to somethingawful have a strong anti-GOP bias, so I'm not satisfied that the presentation of facts accurately reflects reality. Rather, I'm just saying that libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Walter Jones) and organizations promoting 'white power' have some natural affinities.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
brb changing vote to romney
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Reality has a strong Anti-GOP bias.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The mainstream media is not reality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The mainstream media is not reality.
That's right. It so often says things that are proven to be false, and it's easy to point to why. So it can't be said to accurately represent reality.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Obama's post-convention bounce is beginning to fade, allowing us to judge how big the bounce was (not that bounce-size is predictive of anything).
Based on the Pollster national chart, if we act under the assumption that Romney got no bounce at all from his convention or the Paul Ryan pick, the poll average went from an Obama advantage of +0.7 to an advantage of +3.6, meaning about a 3 point bounce (it's now decreased to an Obama +2.1 and I anticipate it will continue to fade to an Obama +1.5 or so, which is about where things were prior to the conventions). Personally, I think Romney received a small (~1 point) bounce between his VP pick and the convention, making Obama's convention bounce more like four points.
That's not a large bounce by historic standards, but it's fairly similar to what recent incumbents (e.g. Bush and Clinton) got out of their conventions. On the whole, convention bounces seem to have been decreasing in size over the past 50 years, with Clinton's mammoth bounce out of the '92 convention the exception to the rule. I attribute this to a voting populace that's more politically engaged earlier in the process, as well as structural changes in the purpose and timing of the conventions.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Do we really think that this election is a contest? It's pretty much a foregone conclusion. Huntsman was the only decent candidate the GOP had, and they failed to realize it at the time.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Do we really think that this election is a contest?
I do (others may disagree). I think Obama's had and continues to have an advantage, but his relatively small (by historic standards) lead is in no way insurmountable, even with less than two months until the election.
As for Huntsman's chances, I'm less sanguine about his abilities than you. I think people (including him) overreacted to his poor showing in the NH primary, but his campaign provided very little evidence that they had the stamina or the innovativeness to run a real national campaign. Generally moderates perform better (although it's not clear how much more moderate Huntsman was than Romney), but I think there are a lot of unknowns about how a national GOP audience would have reacted to Huntsman as a real contender. I do hope he comes back strong for 2016 (or 2020 if Mitt wins), with a more attuned message, more vigor and a better organization.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Obama supporters who think this election is a "foregone conclusion" are nearly as delusional (read: roughly 2% less) as their Republican counterparts like Ron Lambert. Based on current polling, Obama is ahead, but his leads in critical battleground states are slim enough that a nation-wide shift towards Romney by just 1-2 points could be enough to return the race to a dead heat. Add another point towards Romney and the electoral map suddenly favors the Republican.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't treat this as foregone. Just worth sitting on. Good luck to all involved, of course, but most of the speculative period is over. We can only sit and see if anything shows up to give back Romney his shot. Given a static election environment with no shakeups in Romney's favor, obama wins at about 300 or so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Some takeaways from this:
- While I suspect it may be closer to what he really thinks than his feel-good public persona, he changes directions so often this could just be him playing to the crowd. Only this time the crowd is millionaires. - That 47% includes all the people who filed tax returns but paid no liability, and those who didn't file. That includes people who didn't make enough to be taxed further, and it includes people who paid enough in payroll and state taxes to come out even or get a refund. It also includes the roughly 10% of Americans who are retired. - It also includes the hedge fund managers, real estate investors, or other wealthy financiers who combine capital gains with the tax-loss carryforward and other legal dodges to avoid paying taxes. - The growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely due to Republican tax policies. The earned-income tax credit was started by Ford and expanded by Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. G.W. Bush added the child credit and that bumped the number higher. This party has campaigned and pushed for decades for lower taxes, but they still enjoy mocking those who don't pay any. I thought that was the goal? - Best of all, nine of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers are Republican-leaning states.
None of this is surprising. What angers me, what honestly angers me, was this:
quote:"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A nice breakdown of the 47% of non-tax-paying Americans Romney is ready to dismiss.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I wonder if Mitt knows that what Mitt says to rich guys behind closed doors is quite relevant to my decision this election. What I've heard from these leaks isn't good for him.
I want a president who believes in a system built on ensuring that people have basic human necessities like food and health care, and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Despite his assumption, I don't think people mean that requires the government hand these things out directly to all those 47%. I am concerned about someone who wants to be president who wants to protect rich people's money so hard that he doesn't think it's his job to make sure America is a place where people don't starve in poverty.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
Why for all that is good and holy, does this nonsense about people not paying taxes come up with republicans. Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes. Those who don't *can't*. Honestly, who in hell does Mitt Romney think these people are? What, they have jobs and money and just don't pay? What's the message? I don't care about these people because they don't make any money?
What do you do, take 10% from somebody making the bare minimum? Jut to terrorize that class of people a little bit more?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
As much as I'd love to join the bandwagon on how this is the 1% admitting they don't care about 47%, a more real deficiency in the Governor Romney campaign was demonstrated.
These were comments directed to a specific audience. Comments he knew they would believe because they are comments that make the millionaires in the audience feel morally superior.
1) He changes his stated beliefs for each audience and refuses to be pinned down to specifics because those specifics will be used against him. This means we have no idea what his true beliefs are. We just have his word on what they are, and that word changes...often. What can we believe?
2) His comments have little to do with facts. His press people have stated that they will not let their campaign be run by fact checkers. We can read that to believe that it won't be run by facts. If his campaign won't be run by facts what evidence do we have that his work in office will be guided by them.
We already had 8 years of a President who let loyalty and beliefs be more important than facts. When he ignored the facts we invaded Iraq. When he ignored the facts we get phrases like "Good Job Brownie". Do we risk another president who will not be guided by facts?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote: A college professor has been placed on leave after she allegedly forced her class to sign a pledge to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections.
Early last week Professor Sharon Sweet at Brevard Community College (BCC) allegedly told students to sign a pledge that reads: “I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.”
The pledge was printed off of GottaVote.org, a website funded by the Obama campaign.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Haha, wow. The comments on that article are the best part of the story though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: A nice breakdown of the 47% of non-tax-paying Americans Romney is ready to dismiss.
I have had Sharon Sweets in college before and they drive me nuts. I have no sympathy for the teachers who are taking time I am supposed to be using to learn important things and having them get turned into Advanced Mindnumbing Partisanship
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, glad to hear she was disciplined.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was watching the news of the leaked romney video for most of my flight yesterday. This was my summary experience of flipping through the channels:
- CNBC: Romney seems to really be in trouble now - CNN: Will this be the worst trouble of the Romney campaign - MSNBC: Romney probably on fire IRL now - Fox News: Uh, ... muslims are .. doing something, over there
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting that Romney's response is to double down. He didn't even try to parry or explain it away. I guess this is one of those issues that's too close to the talking points to try and disavow as far as the base goes, but, still, that's really something.
You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.
The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.
"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.
Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
I was so pleased last week. Still, I am optimistic that indefinite detention is finally on the way out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.
The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.
"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.
Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
He literally says in those same videos he will punt on the Israel / Palestinian situation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
...So it's really the Republican's fault? I don't know, for me, I think the Obama administration should bear maybe a little of the blame, seeing as how they are the ones actually doing it.
To put it another way, that's quite a Lambertian mind pretzel you've got going on there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That, if anything, is an objectionable portrait of democrats? That if given the opportunity to incorporate evils it can get away with due to the broken intransigence of the Republicans (and the knowledge that liberals aren't really offered a choice in this election) they'll coast on being merely a lesser evil rather than a principled counterpoint to the administration before it?
And it comes as part of a larger observation about how dangerous a situation is created when you have a two party situation in which one party progressively begins to collapse; when one party is not a valid choice, the other soon finds no need to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Romney calls for more Americans to pay tax and be like Canada
quote:It’s hard to match up the numbers from the Canada Revenue Agency exactly but comparable data found here show that for 2009 tax year, the most recent available, about 33.9 per cent of people who filed tax returns did not pay any federal or provincial taxes, which are typically based on the same income figures used for federal tax. About 17 million people who filed returns paid federal and provincial taxes.
So, the deadbeat 47 per cent that Romney cites would be about 34 per cent in Canada.
quote:about 4 minutes in on tape one, Romney starts to talk about what he refers to as “the Jimmy Carter election”, i.e., 1980. He then goes on to talk about how the hostage crisis and the failed rescue mission Desert One were pervasive issues through the 1980 election. Then at the end he says that “if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”
This is months before the Libyan / Egyptian protests, remember.
Boy it's a good thing he is such an unambiguous bunghole ~~
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Is there a difference between the candidates? This (humorous) mashup seems to suggest not.
That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win. Exploiting your opponents misfortunes is part of that. Obviously there are limits, but if Obama actually scuffs up on foreign policy it's expected his opponent can use that against them. Unforunately for Romney, he picked the wrong criticism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.
quote:This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote: This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.
quote:This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote: This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama hasn't gone there, but you have to know exactly how the GOP would have played it if the situation was reversed and a Democrat attacked a sitting GOP president during that sort of incident.
How DARE they attack America in its hour of need?!
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president. [/QB]
It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Slavim:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.
It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line. [/QB]
Not if you honestly believe that the much more important and greater crime is that freedom of expression was being attacked.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How exactly was freedom of expression being attacked? Freedom of expression doesn't mean that expression can't be condemned or criticized. Just that it can't be prohibited. No one suggested that the reckless, arrogant, piece of crap film was illegal.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Several people have, in fact, suggested that the creator of the film ought to be arrested. By "several people" I mean several Americans. Pundits and journalists and stuff, not random crazies on the street.
The fact is that there is a not-insubstantial group of people within our country who really do seem okay with curbing freedom of expression so as not to rile up angry violent Muslims. It's a really dumb position to take, for lots of reasons. It's essentially both cowardly appeasement and racist fearmongering, which would be impressive if it weren't so pathetic.
But yeah, freedom of expression doesn't shield you from criticism, I'm 100% in agreement with you there Kate.
I will just add: "Condemn" is a tricky word. If by that you basically just mean "criticize and insult," then I'm still with you. If you mean something stronger than that, then I'm not sure anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those several people were not the people that Gov. Romney was attacking. I am trying to understand how Gov. Romney supposedly thought that President Obama's administration was attacking freedom of expression.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a blow-by-blow of what the Administration knew and when. State knew what Cairo was putting out, and expressed concerns about the language, but the PA chief in Cairo ignored them. The Administration evidently privately expressed frustration to the Cairo office all day without publicly distancing themselves from the statement, even as Cairo repeated it after the embassy was breached (while including a condemnation of the ongoing violence). It wasn't until Romney's public condemnation that the Administration distanced themselves publicly from what they'd felt all along was a poorly worded press release.
I think Romney's biggest mistake was conflating the press release with the Administration out of a desire to push the (fallacious) 'Obama is an apologizer' meme. However, I think the administration can rightly be criticized for not making its concerns over the press release public sooner. I think Romney stretched it pretty far when he tried to hold Obama accountable for the statements of a bull-headed embassy staffer, but I think it's completely valid to say "Hey, this statement was wrong, you knew it was wrong, and your administration should have immediately stood up and said it was wrong."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I know what state felt was wrong about the press release
quote:It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'
I don't think either Cairo's statement of the SoS's statement attacked freedom of expression, but I do think the Cairo press release failed to adequately recognize the fundamental American belief that people have a right to be offensive without being threatened with violence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is the text of that statement, btw.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?
The issue isn't that the embassy tried to calm the situation, it's that it did it in a way that is unrepresentative of core American values. It's not just me that feels that way, it's the administration as well. And they felt that way even before the attacks. In this case, I think the administration is right; the statement (even as I agree with its sentiment) did not accurately reflect US values.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What core values? Why do you think it was important for the [i]embassy in Cairo[/i,] given that the task of an embassy is diplomacy, to defend this film. The freedom to make this film was not threatened. When I write that the film was a reckless piece of garbage am I attacking our core values?
And getting back to the point, do you really think that Gov. Romney was trying to defend freedom of speech (which was not threatened by the embassy's statement) or trying to score political points?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
Kate: The embassy grounds are American territory. If you don't make it clear that American laws apply there (including the bill of rights) not the host country's, certainly not mob law, then all of our embassies are at risk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Waiting for Ron's landslide any time now...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BladeBlade and Peter -
As Kate said, the statement came out before the embassy was breached. Affirming the American belief in tolerance and acceptance of all religions and peoples is not an undermining of American principles at all, it's a actually a pretty big part of who we claim to be. Religious freedom and freedom of expression often clash messily in America, and there's no one universal way we've deal with it in the past, but I see nothing fundamentally off with the Cairo Embassy's statement as an attempt to blunt outrage, and given what happened, it seems a pretty wise proactive move.
I'm not sure I see the issue here. After the embassy was breached, I'm down with the use of force to suppress the incursion, and with the flowery apologies going away, but before the violence starts, that's when you're supposed to cool tensions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
You keep saying that and I keep asking defending from what?. Why does our embassy need to have, in that particular moment, defended a right that wasn't in danger? Had the embassy said that the ******* who made the film had no right to make the film, they would have been wrong. But they didn't come anywhere close to saying that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, not to get caught up on language, but one could infer from the expected protest that inherent in Muslim complaints about the movie, and in specific complaints about it not being banned, Muslim protesters were in fact attacking our level of freedom of expression.
So the Embassy's condemnation of the movie could look more like a nod to the protesters than to upholding our belief in the right to mass produce insulting filth.
On the other hand, I think BB would be better served saying "reaffirming" rather than "defending," but either way, I don't think they were under any obligation to do so. That strikes me as nonsense political double talk.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Let me try an analogy; I doubt it'll go well (such things seldom seem to), but here goes.
The other day I was in a bar and a woman came in dressed in a revealing halter top and Daisy Duke shorts. One of the women in my group said, "Boy, women really shouldn't dress provocatively like that." Her husband just looked away. Later, some guys start hassling the woman and one of them yanks her top off and pulls off her shorts. My friend says to the group, "Wow, that's awful. They shouldn't be doing that. But she shouldn't have come in here dressed so provocatively, either." Later that night, we found out the woman was raped and murdered in a bar across town.
Now, I wouldn't say my friend's slut-shaming comments were an assault women's freedom to dress how they want, and I certainly think it's silly to call out the husband saying the woman was speaking for both of them. I would however say my friend's statements failed to accurately reflect most people's sense of moral sentiment, and that we should expect better from people (particularly authority figures, like representatives of the US government).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure the analogy translates. It would seem you're boiling it down to blaming the victim, but I fail to see how the embassy statement can be pigeonholed as blaming the victim.
Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
A better analogy would be, provocatively dressed woman walks into a mosque and sits down. Someone says, "wow, that's really disrespectful and insulting, she shouldn't have done that."
On a side note...what bars are you going to?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.
I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.
As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
I think BlackBlade is correct.
Muslims threaten Americans. The Obama administration threatens freedom of speech via Google. Google stands up for free speech, *not* the government. If anything, Google had to defend the freedom of speech from Obama.
quote: On Thursday, the Obama White House called executives at Google, the parent company of YouTube, and "requested" that the company review whether the disgusting anti-Muslim film that has sparked such unrest should be removed on the ground that it violates YouTube's terms of service.
In response, free speech groups such as the ACLU and EFF expressed serious concerns about the White House's actions. While acknowledging that there was nothing legally compulsory about the White House's request (indeed, Google announced the next day they would leave the video up), the civil liberties groups nonetheless noted – correctly – that "it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship", and that "by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down; when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect".
Right-wing commenters loudly decried the White House's actions on free speech grounds. Some of their rhetoric was overblown (the sentiment behind the request was understandable, and they did nothing to compel its removal). But, for reasons made clear by the ACLU and EFF, these conservative objections were largely correct.
Note, government "requests" are how China manages the majority of its net censorship.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.
I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.
As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
Let me ask you this, does the violence negate the original statement?
See you added a causality twist in there with your analogy that's a bit different, I think, than what actually happened.
1. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive.
2. Violence happens.
3. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive. You also condemn the violence.
That's what happened. What you're doing is adding an extra step, that says the violence is justified by the violence. Oh, well, those rapists couldn't help themselves. Oh, well, those protesters couldn't help themselves.
It's neither explicit nor implicit in the embassy statements, neither the initial one nor the subsequent one that any such justification is admitted by the staff. It is in fact possible for the video producer and the violent protesters to both be wrong for different reasons, and it sounds like that's what the second statement is saying. But the violence doesn't get the video off the hook.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The embassy grounds are American territory.
First: While you're talking about the Egyptian embassy, it's worth noting that the site in Libya was a consulate, not an embassy.
There are so few subjects I am uncomfortable being wrong on, and you managed to find one. Though it does say the host country can't enter an embassy and this is also true of consulates without the representing countries permission.
Thanks for correcting that misconception.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
I see what you did there.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
In addition to releasing his full 2011 taxes, Romney will also be releasing a summary of the past 20 years. The data is supposed to be available here although I haven't managed to get through yet.
It's an odd thing to do; maybe he's trying to show that he can listen to and respond to people's concerns. But I think, particularly because it's just summaries and not the full documents, that it's just going to open him up to further attack on the issue from Democrats. FWIW, here are the topline statistics, courtesy of this blog post quoting from this press release:
quote: In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's good enough as far as I'm concerned. The specifics of how he got his percentages to where he did are not secrets, many accountants can describe them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not odd at all. He's trying to disprove some of the negatives without opening himself up to any actual scrutiny, because many tax experts have openly said they honestly can't figure out a lot of his tax issues, and that his returns are incredibly dense, complex, and riddled with question marks.
Releasing a summary shows people he actually paid taxes, that was the big point. Now he hopes the issue goes away without people digging through the details.
It's not good enough for me, but I don't expect any more.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, it won't be going away any time soon.
His 2011 returns reveal he paid a 14.1% tax rate. Still lower than most, but higher than expected. And I'm sure he hopes this would shut everyone up.
Except he picked that number by choice. Had he taken the deductions on charitable donations he was permitted, his rate would have been 9%. His campaign came right out and said he overpaid to meet the commitments he made to have a rate over 14%.
The part that I'm sure he's hating is the immediate resurgence of his quote from a January debate:
quote:I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.
And in July he told ABC news that anyone overpaying their taxes wasn't "qualified" to be president.
The news he was hoping for? "Romney releases tax returns, nothing shocking found." The news you'll hear all weekend? "Romney disqualifies himself from the race."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Campaign statement:
quote:He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. In order to be consistent with that statement, the Romneys limited their deduction of charitable contributions.
I'll be honest, I don't remember his explicit wording. Probably a good idea to check on it....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet the 47% who aren't legally required to pay income taxes are freeloaders.
Man, you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make sense of his beliefs regarding taxes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The "unique positions" is that he's behind in the polls.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess it's indicative of how well his campaign has been going that he wants people to be talking about his tax returns again
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Saw this on the Daily Show, dug up a link.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
meh... The "47% who pay no income taxes" still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than Romney.
1) Tithing ain't charitable even though it's tax deductable as a "charitable contribution", nor is supporting Republican political action groups which operate under the guise of being "educational". 2) For a Mormon bishop especially, the 10% tithe is on income before deductions. ie Romney's $4million in "charitable contributions" could easily reflect a real income of $40million before tax loopholes allow him to claim a mere $13million as taxable income. 3) "Paying a half million more than I had to" in taxes while running for President is campaign financing, not "an overpayment to make sure I'm paying my fair share".
[ September 22, 2012, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Aspectre, tithing can be paid on gross or net. The exact details of what you pay is between you and God. Some bishops may say it should be pre tax but they are wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've seen video of Obama's appearance at the Univision town hall, and to call his reception there frosty would an understatement. It was an intense hour that ground Obama down with relentlessly aggressive questions. I liked it.
Romney on the other hand forced Univision to allow him to bus in his own supporters from around the state, who proceeded to break the rules and cheer and boo throughout the forum, constantly interrupting the hosts, who were a little pissy about that. Romney apparently threw a hissy fit back stage over a couple of issues with the forum, after threatening to cancel if he couldn't have his own supporters there.
I think it was a pretty smart move on his part, since the contrast looks bad for Obama. The media is talking more about Romney's bad tan than they are the story behind the town hall.
But I also think this is yet more evidence that he'll do poorly at the debates next month. He simply refuses to tackle a world outside the bubble his handlers have created for him.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Romney said earlier his 47% comments can't be used against him, because they were said by him, and not his campaign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's his delusional rationale behind that statement?
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Scott Pelley: Well-- as you know, a lot of people were concerned about the video of the fundraiser in which you talked about the 47 percent of the American people who don't pay taxes. Peggy Noonan, a very well-known conservative columnist, said that it was an example of this campaign being incompetent. And I wonder if any of that criticism gets through to you and whether you're concerned about it at all, whether--
Mitt Romney: Well, that's not--
Scott Pelley: --the concerns of Republicans--
Mitt Romney: That's not...that's not the campaign. That was me, right? I-- that's not a campaign.
Scott Pelley: You are the campaign--
Mitt Romney: I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job. But not everything I say is elegant. And I want to make it very clear, I want to help 100 percent of the American people.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think, according that that transcript, he was just defending the people who are working to get him elected. He was asked if the campaign was incompetent, and he said 'That was me, right?'
In other words, he said the campaign was fine, he's the incompetent one. Which is fair. No way did any of his advisers suggest he made that 47% comment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do wonder, often, what sort of candidate Romney would be if we weren't in a period when to get his party's nomination, he wouldn't had to have gotten quite so snug and comfortable (or try to) with a party that is substantially more strident, more angry, more conservative, and more disdainful of compromise than has been the case, as my understanding goes, in American politics for quite some time. A guest on either Talk of the Nation or tell me more said it well, I think. Paraphrasing, he pointed out that Romney has a sincerity problem because he's not speaking his native language.
I think there's a case to be made for a claim that Romney's stances can be...fluid...when necessary, but I do wonder how he would look if the water hadn't had to flow quite so far uphill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have much sympathy.
If you want to be president so much that you're ready to compromise your core principles, maybe you shouldn't be president.
[ September 23, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I didn't mean I was particularly sympathetic. Just curious, with the suspicion that if politics hadn't necessitated the choice between Massachusetts Romney and GOP primary Romney, I would like him better, but wouldn't have an idea just how far right he would go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he was Massachusetts Romney, he'd probably be ahead in the polls. This is the perfect election for a moderate Republican to knock off a sitting conservative Democrat.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If he was Massachusetts Romney, he'd probably be ahead in the polls. This is the perfect election for a moderate Republican to knock off a sitting conservative Democrat.
Great point. Indeed, for a long time now (since the beginning of the Bush [2] years) I've suspected my general shift to Democrat support has been mainly due to the Republican "machine" and not so much the specific Republican candidates or greater empathy toward the Democrats.
McCain was a great example. Way back in the 2000 election, I was deciding what to register as. I'd characterize myself as a moderate, leaning Democratic. But, in the primaries that year, I thought McCain was a great choice. Had he been the RNC candidate that year, I very easily could see myself have registered Republican and voted for him.
By the time he got the nomination in 2008, the Republican party line had become so distasteful to me I wound up not just voting for Obama, but even volunteered for his campaign.
No such volunteering this year - I'm not happy with how he hasn't made any headway (or seems to even have any interest in) repealing much of the Patriot Act or how he hasn't held Wall Street accountable in any real way for the crash.
But there's no way I foresee voting for the Republican nominee - no matter who they are - while they pander to a base that becomes more and more hardline and foreign to the Republican party I grew up in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remain on pins and needles to see where the GOP goes if Romney loses. Do they go into the wilderness and come out more moderate? Or do they double down on the hard right?
I think that depends on two things: 1. How successful Romney is in placing blame if he loses. If the party decides he lost because he wasn't conservative enough, the chances of them nominating a moderate are slim. If he convinces them he went all in in their ideology, with Ryan and his ridiculous campaign posturing, maybe they'll try for a real moderate next time.
2. How successful Obama is in a second term. If they stonewall him for four more years, I don't know what happens, but surely the country suffers. Clearly it will have failed as an electoral strategy, so they might try playing nice a little more so they can't get pegged as a do-nothing Congress. It's hard to say, but there are already rumblings that if Obama wins, the GOP will cave on taxes to save defense spending.
It's interesting, Dems came up with Obama and/or Clinton after Kerry lost. This is a similar election in many ways. If Romney loses, do they go for the GOP version of Obama?
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I think, according that that transcript, he was just defending the people who are working to get him elected. He was asked if the campaign was incompetent, and he said 'That was me, right?'
In other words, he said the campaign was fine, he's the incompetent one. Which is fair. No way did any of his advisers suggest he made that 47% comment.
I see what he's doing. Although it falls flat. Regardless of how hard his campaign works, if they have a candidate that sucks, their campaign sucks. It's not necessarily due to their incompetence obviously, but HE is the campaign. The way he said it made it sound like he wasn't.
The fact is you're electing the Candidate, even if that means they bring some of their campaign people on with them as advisers, the face of the Country and their party as well, will be Romney.
Also campaign staffers who stay on the ship as it's Captain is trying to sink it don't get that much sympathy from me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney's 60 minutes stint is just brutal to watch.
Is “fair to a guy who makes $50k” to pay “a higher rate than you?” Romney: “yeah.. It’s the right way to encourage economic growth.”
Doh, I get it. If I make more money, why I'll pay less in taxes. This means I'll have more money. Why didn't I think of that. Well forget about screwing off in the unemployment line. I'm going to work extra hard now so I can pay less in taxes.
Listen Governor Romney and the rest of the motivationalists out there. We haven't all become rich because we lack the motivation to do it. We are motivated every time we have to say no to our kids, every time we eat filler food instead of tasty food, every time we see a commercial that says "Buy" and we have to say "No". We don't lack the motivation.
We lack the luck, the connections, the deviousness, or the opportunities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we just stop indulging the poor, they will stop being poor. This is how poverty was eradicated before there were government programs to coddle the poor. There were no poor people in the US before FDR.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I'm very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can't go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It's not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tiny Tim was a slacker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To be fair Scrooge went too far in the other direction, and started paying for Tiny Tim's visits to the emergency room. Which of course was not free in those primitive days.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't really understand how that's too far in the other direction.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: On Monday, Mitt Romney offered a remedy to the problem that caused his wife’s airplane to land prematurely last week: Allow passengers to roll down the airplane windows.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I don't really understand how that's too far in the other direction.
He's dolling out money to the poor!
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's 60 minutes stint is just brutal to watch.
Is “fair to a guy who makes $50k” to pay “a higher rate than you?” Romney: “yeah.. It’s the right way to encourage economic growth.”
Well that's a nice snip and paste that just happens to omit a good chunk of the conversation and what he actually said. If you listen to the actual interview, he explains that the reason the capital gains rate is lower than regular income is because the investment itself has already been paid for with money taxed at full boat, often as high as 35%.
I happen to agree with not being taxed on investments as if they were my regular paycheck. I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income. Unless the government was also willing to cover losses for me, then we might be able to strike a deal of some sort.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income.
Really? What would you do with the money otherwise? I don't see how having gains subject to taxes would disuade a person from seeking gains. It's like saying if my salary is going to be taxed I just won't work.
quote:Unless the government was also willing to cover losses for me, then we might be able to strike a deal of some sort.
You can deduct losses, so I guess we're all set.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Now you're getting it. There is definitely a point at which I won't put my money to work through certain vehicles if the tax on gains is punitive when factored with the inherent risk. I'd probably invest in real estate. Until they decide to get rid of the 1031 exchange, in which case I'd probably stuff any extra duckets I had in my mattress.
You can deduct losses against gains, which is great provided you have gains to deduct against.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income.
Really? What would you do with the money otherwise? I don't see how having gains subject to taxes would disuade a person from seeking gains. It's like saying if my salary is going to be taxed I just won't work.
It happens.
Raising taxes on capital gains or interest income has a similar effect to simply outright reducing your capital gains or reducing interest rates. Investing is encouraged when your invested money gains enough value via investing so that the present value of your investment outweighs the value that you have now. (e.g. "the happiness created by me spending my greater amount of money in twenty years outweighs the happiness that I'll get by spending it now") However, if returns are reduced that becomes less likely.
Now, in a way, that's actually government policy. For example, the lowering of interest rates is *supposed* to encourage spending rather than saving. But it cannot be ignored that this kind of policy discourages people from saving and becoming self-sufficient during their own retirements.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Yup. The question "why would taking more of your [investment] gains disuade you from seeking gains?" is a bit bizarre.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd seriously like to see someone at Romney's level of wealth try to spend his wealth now, instead of investing it.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'd seriously like to see someone at Romney's level of wealth try to spend his wealth now, instead of investing it.
Definitely not likely, but the ramifications of taxing the snot out of capital gains would affect a heck of lot more small fry than whales.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do you think so? If you look at capital gains, the "whales" are rather overwhelmingly represented.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Overwhelmingly represented in in terms of absolute amount of wealth affected maybe. In terms of utility of their wealth lost, it could very well be the middle class. Losing 5% of your gains when you've scratched together $20,000 is a lot more damaging then losing 5% of your gains if you own tens of millions. Additionally, under American tax rules, Romney could probably weasel out of being affected by the change while the middle class has no such option.
You really need a sustained and targeted campaign if the goal is to reduce the wealth of "whales." A one-off patch like simply changing capital gains taxes would simply create lots of collateral damage without affecting your real target.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I have no idea how the data on capital gains is distributed across those who invest in general. I'm speaking only experientially.
I'm in an exponentially (to put it mildly) different category than Romney, but this is a matter that affects my decisions, and those of many I know, greatly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it's still the best way out there to make a buck, I suspect the process of seeking gains will still be pursued, though of course any efforts to cut into that will have an impact.
What I'm past sick of is proponents-particularly the very wealthy, or the politicians they fund-behaving as though opposition to more of a tax is some sort of public good stance. That may very well be one of the reasons such people oppose such efforts, but let's not forget that the other reason is a great big helping of self interest. Which is fine, actually, I've no beef with people attempting to lower their own tax rate through the legislative process. But don't try and sell me that you're my buddy and it's best this way for everyone because trickle down etc. etc. That's an argumen that has to actually be made, not simply presented as credible on its own. Not when doing so is in the presenter's very real, very obvious self-interest.
And especially don't try and sell me that stuff when you're also then going on to sneer at your opponent's supporters who will continue to support him just because it's in their financial interest to do so. Try not to treat me like an idiot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think it would be exceedingly difficult to for me to be affected by American capital gains tax rates.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
There's no reason the axe has to fall so heavily on the middle class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because redistribution, that's why!
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
I had a similar thought when everyone got up in arms about the raising taxes on those who make $250K/year thing a while ago. How about instead of making it black and white, for or against, some compromise gets made where it goes into affect for $500K or $1MM/year?
Nope. Had to be good vs. evil. Battle to the death.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
That would be fine.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Warren Buffet talked about how he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary and he points out how unfair this is, and it's easy, because it's RIDICULOUSLY UNFAIR. And people who want to keep things taxed like this have to weasel around this issue.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Now, moral arguments about 'fairness' are totally valid (although I think many people putting forward a moral argument for increased tax rates on the wealthy are being inconsistent on whether enforcing particular groups' moral positions is the appropriate purview of the federal government). But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
<edit>In the interest of accuracy, here is something actually written by Ezra Klein arguing that capital gains tax rates could be increased without the bad things economists worry about happening. His point is primarily that while in theory tax rates on investment should be kept low, in practice investors (and the economy) don't seem to react to changes in the tax rates the way theory would predict, so the theory is probably deficient. He does twist a couple of facts to make his point (Reagan only raised capital gains taxes after he dropped them rather dramatically), and elides others (like drops in capital gains rates have generally in recent history resulted in increased government revenue) and IMO significantly overinterprets the lack of correlation in the chart of tax rates and GDP growth, but he does provide essentially a behavioralist defense of increased tax rates: people don't invest rationally, so planning our tax code as if they do won't get the result you think it should.</edit>
[ September 25, 2012, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
*blink* I think that's definitely overstating the "consensus." In fact, I think the actual consensus is that capital gains rates need to be considerably higher.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Well that's a nice snip and paste that just happens to omit a good chunk of the conversation and what he actually said.
Ok, let's look at the whole of what he said, according to the article:
quote: “Now you made, on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year,” Pelley said. “And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?”
“It is a low rate,” Romney said. “And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.”
When pressed on whether or not he believes that rate is fair, Romney said he thought it was the “right way to encourage economic growth — to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.”
So, basically the same thing. He's totally for a person who makes $50k a year paying a much higher effective tax rate than him, because the system as it is (plus his mathematically impossible tax plan, no doubt) is the right way to encourage economic growth.
There is a reason why this is so concerning. It is a level beyond supply side. We can call it 'supply side II' and look at what wealth divides would be under the Romney ideal.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
*blink* I think that's definitely overstating the "consensus." In fact, I think the actual consensus is that capital gains rates need to be considerably higher.
Population consensus may be (probably is) that capital gains rates should increase. But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
The consensus among those who have no capital gains is to raise CG taxes, of that I'm certain. I think the question is whether doing so would have a net negative impact on investment in general and hurt everyone. I'm not qualified to answer that one. I know it would change what I do with my money, and my gut says I'm not an outlier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
No, I don't think so. The consensus among monetarists seems to line up that way, but monetarists are stupid and wrong. I think we might also be confusing financiers with economists, as we saw with the whole "600+ economists for Romney" bit -- where around half the "economists" listed were actually professors of finance. I have no doubt that a consensus among people whose lives revolve around ensuring a high debt-to-asset ratio in the general population is that capital gains taxes are bad. *grin*
------
quote:I know it would change what I do with my money...
Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
More to the point: if capital gains were your primary source of income, would they cease to be your primary source of income if they were taxed more highly?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
No, I don't think so. The consensus among monetarists seems to line up that way, but monetarists are stupid and wrong.
quote:[T]his is definitely an issue where the conservative position is in line with what most experts think is the right course, and Democrats are outside the mainstream...It's a pretty solid theory, it's in most of the textbooks I've seen, and it shapes public policy in basically every country I'm familiar with.
I'm not that up on macroeconomics, but based on my passing familiarity with the subject I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income. If such a position exists, I'm not alone in seeing it as outside the mainstream scientific consensus on the issue.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
More to the point: if capital gains were your primary source of income, would they cease to be your primary source of income if they were taxed more highly? [/QB]
I'd probably look much closer at real estate or maybe bonds.
But I was speaking more from the perspective of active/future investment decisions vs existing. That said, can you imagine the sell-off if/when it's announced that the rate is going up by 20% as of X date?
To your point, if I actually had cap gains as my primary source of income already, I probably wouldn't/couldn't do much about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income...
Is that the yardstick? I thought we were arguing over whether it was a consensus that taxing capital gains was bad, and higher capital gains taxes were themselves always also bad.
-----------
quote:But I was speaking more from the perspective of active/future investment decisions vs existing. That said, can you imagine the sell-off if/when it's announced that the rate is going up by 20% as of X date?
Where, again, is that money going to go? We're talking about people who use capital -- stocks, etc. -- as an alternative to savings accounts, people whose net worth is overwhelmingly in capital. Are they going to sell all their stock and buy real estate, thus saving the real estate market? Are they going to buy gold, because they're stupid? Are they going to put it in a money market? I don't think so.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
-----------
[QUOTE]... We're talking about people who use capital -- stocks, etc. -- as an alternative to savings accounts, people whose net worth is overwhelmingly in capital. [/QB]
We are? I certainly don't fall in that category, unless you're defining capital differently than I do. And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
I realize its not black and white but I'm telling you what my thought process would be, not my speculation about the broader market. Again, I don't think I'm an unusual example, but maybe I am and most others would just shrug and stay in no matter what.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Why not just apply the rule to future investments, if a sell-off is the primary concern?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Why not just apply the rule to future investments, if a sell-off is the primary concern?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Back when the US taxed it at 90% during WWII did rich people stop saving money?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
If I were Scott, I'd probably just move to Canada, comparing tax rates under that proposal, I think the Canadian tax rates on capital gains would be lower at every income level.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Are they going to sell all their stock and buy real estate, thus saving the real estate market? Are they going to buy gold, because they're stupid? Are they going to put it in a money market? I don't think so.
In Canada, it would probably first go to dividend stocks that produce tax-advantaged dividend income instead of capital gains. So that would be a big shift from stocks that emphasize capital gains (technology companies) to financial stocks (banks and the like).
If that was blocked, it would probably go into real estate. But I would say that would be a really bad idea since it would work against the government's efforts to rein in what looks like a housing bubble.
The government could of course remove the capital gains exemption on primary housing to fight even that ...
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Because companies use shareholder investments to grow their businesses, hire more people etc. When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things. Like design proprietary connector cables shipped straight from China. Ok, maybe not the greatest example.
If I do decide to get out of stocks, you could argue that my capital has merely shifted and there are ancillary benefits (ie growth, hiring) with that shift. But I don't think it would be a great trend, given how tightly economy is tied to equity markets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that the tight coupling of our economy to the equity markets is one of the great weaknesses and problems with our economy, and think a large movement away from stock "investment" as another form of savings would be enormously beneficial.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not that up on macroeconomics, but based on my passing familiarity with the subject I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income. If such a position exists, I'm not alone in seeing it as outside the mainstream scientific consensus on the issue.
A couple of problems with this. First, economics is not scientific. I'm not sure why you would describe it that way.
Second, what you are saying isn't true. No one has been able to demonstrate that a higher capital gains rate or one equal to the income rate, has a negative effect on economic growth.
And that's leaving aside the situation we find ourselves in and the scope of the proposals. We are seeing a massive wealth disparity between the working class and the investing class. This is a very bad thing. There are a variety of proposals out there, none of which rely on a straight raise of the capital gains rate, but rather are targeted at those with high incomes and often those who high incomes come solely or mostly through investment. We're not sure what will happen then, just as we're not sure if any negatives will be worse than allowing the continued widening of wealth in the classes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Well, that's how it works some of the time, if new new shares were issued and you purchased them for example.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If apple sells you stock that it owns directly, then that is exactly what is going on. Sometimes they also use their cash to buy their own stock when the price is low.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Well, that's how it works some of the time, if new new shares were issued and you purchased them for example.
Yes, it sometimes happens, when companies hold a secondary offering. Apple is not however holding a secondary offering. The $675 share purchase would be like the overwhelming majority of transactions where the money doesn't go to the company. But it seemed like the Scott was saying that it would. So I asked him to explain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If apple sells you stock that it owns directly, then that is exactly what is going on. Sometimes they also use their cash to buy their own stock when the price is low.
I'm not sure what you mean by that first part, but it looks like it might be based on an incorrect assumption. A company can't sell its own stock on the open market without an official public offering.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Because companies use shareholder investments to grow their businesses, hire more people etc. When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things. Like design proprietary connector cables shipped straight from China. Ok, maybe not the greatest example.
If I do decide to get out of stocks, you could argue that my capital has merely shifted and there are ancillary benefits (ie growth, hiring) with that shift. But I don't think it would be a great trend, given how tightly economy is tied to equity markets.
Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Your first sentence is false. I work for a company that just IPO'd and we now have a bunch of extra money. We are opening new offices and hiring a bunch of people as a result.
We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Yeah you're right, technically it's only newly issued stock and primary market tx's that go directly to the company and the secondary market stock is traded between shareholders.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would argue that the tight coupling of our economy to the equity markets is one of the great weaknesses and problems with our economy, and think a large movement away from stock "investment" as another form of savings would be enormously beneficial.
Fair enough.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Your first sentence is false. I work for a company that just IPO'd and we now have a bunch of extra money. We are opening new offices and hiring a bunch of people as a result.
We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
I don't think you understood boots's point. Your company isn't expanding because they have more money. The money is allowing them to expand, but they are doing it because they believe that there will be demand for the additional production that this expansion enables. If they didn't believe this, expansion would be crazy.
In a rational economic system, additional capital enables expansion. It doesn't drive it. That's done by expected unmet demand (as well as strategic concerns).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
I don't think you're really contradicting kate here. IPOs are a special case and represent a small fraction of trades. Purchasing shares of Walmart or Apple does not lead to much hiring.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I might be parsing or reading into it too literally - maybe I'm not contradicting her. We believed in increased opportunity before we had the capital infusion, but could not expand based purely on that optimism. Because we now have extra money, we are growing and hiring.
If the intention was "Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money unless there is also anticipated opportunity or demand" then we're definitely in sync. Of course opportunity is not the same as demand.
MattP - agreed that IPOs are outliers with regards to how capital works for companies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If companies grew and hired because they had extra cash laying around then we simply wouldn't have an unemployment problem.
Cry about taxes and the like as you wish, but corporate America is sitting on a multi-billion dollar nest egg, and I've read dozens of articles in the last year and interviews with CEOs where they say the number one reason they aren't spending that money is because there's a lack of demand. You can't create more product to sell when no one wants to buy the product you already have.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If companies grew and hired because they had extra cash laying around then we simply wouldn't have an unemployment problem.
Cry about taxes and the like as you wish, but corporate America is sitting on a multi-billion dollar nest egg, and I've read dozens of articles in the last year and interviews with CEOs where they say the number one reason they aren't spending that money is because there's a lack of demand. You can't create more product to sell when no one wants to buy the product you already have.
A good example of this would be Apple. They're not going out and hiring tons and tons of 'spare' people they don't need, they even have the demand, but they don't need the employees. Sitting on 90 billion in cash, more than legally allowed, they had to come up with a plan to spend it, and give some back in dividends.
They had no reason to go out and hire more people just because they could.
A friend of mine owns a restaurant, he keeps wondering why anyone thinks even he (An ACTUAL small business) would hire another employee just because his taxes went down. He doesn't have a need for them, or work for them to do. If he needs someone, he will hire them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why with the marginal savings from everybody's taxes being cut, we'll all go out to restaurants now and he'll need additional locations!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why with the marginal savings from everybody's taxes being cut, we'll all go out to restaurants now and he'll need additional locations!
See that's true. But it is only true for those people for whom going to restaurants would be an unaffordable luxury without the tax cuts.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I'm under the impression that when rich people get more money, they usually don't spend it right away, as they already had enough money for whatever they wanted to buy.
But when poor people, or lower middle-class people get more money, they spend it right away. Because there is so much they always wanted, but couldn't afford. When they can finally afford it, they buy it right away.
The money goes immediately into circulation. It goes into products and services. People buy new mobiles and furniture, they go to restaurants and amusement parks, they get someone to fix the plumbing, or to repair the paint in the car.
All the stuff that they quite didn't have enough money for.
This means there is much greater demand in the economy - for *almost everything*. Excluding stuff like expensive luxury items. And this means more jobs at almost every level. And more jobs means again more poor and lower middle-class people with more money to spend. Which means again greater demand.
If a rich person gets a few extra millions due to tax cuts, I don't think he's likely to go to more restaurants and amusement parks. He already had the best mobile, and the best furniture. His plumbing doesn't need fixing, and neither does his car.
Maybe he buys a new yacht, once he has saved a few million more. Then again, he might be well satisfied with his current yacht. So the money goes to savings, stocks, bonds, etc.
This all sounds rather logical to me. Maybe It's fundamentally flawed, but I've seen many noted economists argue more or less the same principle.
Ironically, the stock-owning, company-owning, product & service-providing rich person is probably going to make more money because of the larger spending of the poor and the lower middle-class, than he could have ever done with tax cuts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm trying to remember the quote, either Twain or Will Rogers--that said something along the lines that "If you give more money to the rich, they will hang on to it in all the ways they have practiced for centuries. If you give more money to the poor, the rich will have it by nightfall. That's how they got rich in the first place."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So apparently on Fox News Gaddaffi was described as a "key US ally".
Interesting.
@Tuukka: Along those lines I hear that a better proposal would've been instead of bailing out the banks, simply wipe out all US private debt.
Which would crush the banks.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
This headline on CNN this morning made me legitimately laugh out loud:
I'm sure the wording is not what the Romney campaign intended, but it's kinda hilarious regardless.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seriously! What the heck? If they already expect to lose the first debate why would I even tune in to see him participate?
I guess there's the curiosity of seeing just what it's like for Mitt Romney to do something he expects to lose at.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
General hilarity for this election was kind of down after the conclusion of the clownshow republican primary but that clip sees us kind of catching back up into stride!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The best part is after he fails to rile them up, when he's like "There we go!" as if the thing he'd wanted to have happen actually happened.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
Regardless, this is hardly news. Romney's folks have been spinning this line for weeks, and I'm sure even the blunt headline doesn't bother them considerably, though they would have preferred something different. The point is to lower expectations so that when he loses, or better, if he actually holds his own, then doing okay becomes at worst nothing bad, and at best, a victory. It's all about managing the press more than anything.
I don't think it means he won't try hard or that he'll phone it in, not any more than he did as his primary debates. In fact, I expect he'll try his hardest because anything that can be spun as a great performance suddenly becomes an upset victory against Obama, the master debater.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Lambert is writing a correction to the internal memo though, we need to wait until we have all the facts
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
I thought they were talking about his experience from the 2008 campaign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
(Post removed by JanitorBlade. Offensive content.)
[ September 28, 2012, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [link removed]
And?
Setting aside the fact that plenty of standard men's undershirts have a very similar silhouette (my son has some), so what? It's not like Romney has hidden the fact that he is a practicing Mormon.
[ September 28, 2012, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: I don't exactly get what your post is going for but Mormon garments are a very sacred thing to them. As the owner of this site is LDS I am sure he would not be comfortable with that link. Please remove it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: I imagine you simply haven't had enough time to see my request, but I felt I needed to remove the link after some time had passed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
I thought they were talking about his experience from the 2008 campaign.
Well sure, but he only had three debates with McCain. Where are the other five coming from? Or are they counting his one on one debates with Clinton?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
While a reasonable guess, it does not make sense in the orginal context. In the press release they said "This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first."
The memo goes on to talk about debates against both McCain and Clinton. Including Obama's primary debates with Clinton while ignoring all the primary debates Mitt participated in seems a bit dishonest to me. Romney participated in more than 20 debates during the primary season. Sure, none of them were actually one-on-one debates but I'm not sure why that distinction really matters. They are trying to paint Romney as a complete novice to political debates which at this point is simply untrue.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: This headline on CNN this morning made me legitimately laugh out loud:
I'm sure the wording is not what the Romney campaign intended, but it's kinda hilarious regardless.
Both sides are working hard to raise debate expectations of their opponents. This is pretty standard stuff. From the article, "Managing debate expectations is a well-worn presidential campaign tradition — and a painfully obvious tactic. But both sides have been ratcheting up the rhetoric to new heights, trying to make the other guy look 10 feet tall in hopes of getting reporters to spin the debate in their favor Wednesday if their candidate does better than expected."
No, Romney did not fail to start a "Romney-Ryan" chant. MSNBC, and first-hand accounts from the crowd, say that the crowd was chanting "Romney" (contrary to the 'Joe & Friends' graphic). When Romney tried to insert "Ryan" the crowd noise died down. It seems evident that the crowd just assumed he was leading into his stump speech and gave up the cheer when he started talking. Furthermore...seriously? This is a big deal? I know the narrative du jour is that Romney is failing to generate excitement (and there's truth to that; if you compare polls, Democrats' excitement increased much more post-convention than Republicans, which is the main reason polls currently favor Obama), but the fact that people really seem to resonate with clips of Romney's occasional stump awkwardness (remember "America the Beautiful"?) seems, to me, petty and a bit silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
Romney's press statement said Obama participated in 8 debates.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj? It seems to me as much if not more due to various statements Romney himself has made, or been shown to have made (apologies, embassy attack, 47%, Chinese factories, etc.). We'll see to what extent the Obama campaign can keep that negative momentum going.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Furthermore...seriously? This is a big deal?
It's funny. I almost feel sorry for scarborough.
almost. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
I don't much see it. Maybe if I squint, I can see a leveling off prior to 47%, but I think a simpler explanation is that the conventions changed something, possibly permanently, in the race and we're seeing the persistent effects of that. That said, there's no real way to disentangle any of these effects; Andrew Gelman and John Sides (both of whom I view as top notch quantitative political scientists) have estimated the impact of Romney's 47% comments at about 1%, but to some degree it's simply an unanswerable question about what it is that has increased Democratic enthusiasm.
What I think has been established (although I could be wrong about this, and if someone shows me contrary evidence I'll retract) is that the movement in the polls hasn't been due to 'conversion' in the sense that people who previously were leaning toward Romney are now leaning toward Obama. Instead, it's due to an increase in the number of Democrats or Democratic leaners who'd always favored Obama, but who now say they are definitely voting in November. In other words, the consensus likely voter model for the 2012 election has shifted from looking like 2010 to something more like 2008.
<edit>The Pollster estimate shows a more pronounced flattening out post-convention, followed by about a 1% movement post "47%". At least for the moment; I've found that their poll fusion algorithm has a frustrating lack of temporal consistency.</edit>
[ September 29, 2012, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What happened with Romney and Chinese factories? Must have missed that.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I know three people who, as a direct result of Romney's 47% statements, are voting for third party candidates. I think there's definitely been fallout for him, taking form mostly as people splitting the vote.
[edited to add] They were solid Romney supporters beforehand. I forgot to mention that. Also, I'm not entirely sure of this post's relevance to the conversation. So, I'm going to leave it, and back quietly away, and hope that if I accidentally derailed something, people will just ignore me. XD
[edited again to add] I'm never posting drunk again. I had to delete another post because I quoted instead of edited. Lesson learned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When you're drunk you post political commentary?
I don't think you're doing it right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He doesn't have a drinking problem. He gets drunk no problem.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Barack Obama wants you to know that he’s a really not so great as a debater.
As part of his week-long effort to lower expectations ahead of Wednesday’s first Obama-Romney debate in Denver – an obligatory ritual even the campaigns find tiresome – the president informed a crowd of 11,200 here Sunday night not to expect too much.
“Governor Romney is a good debater. I’m just okay,” said Obama, who is not known for his humility in competitive activities ranging from golf to cards to elections.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I wonder how much of that is from Palin holding her own against Biden being considered a big victory because everyone thought she'd be crushed.
I'm not really sure why else they'd be playing this game.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You left out the most important piece of the article!
quote:Obama will spend the next two days in seclusion at a lakefront hotel in nearby Henderson, Nev., prepping for the showdown with advisers David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Ron Klain, along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is playing Romney in mock-ups.
I find that irrationally hilarious. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Heh, I wonder if they gave him briefing/training notes with tips on how to be more like Mitt Romney. That would make for amusing reading.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not surprising. Romney is trying to lower expectations to make it so the act of breathing correctly is considered a victory and Obama is trying to keep them on the same level.
This is all inside baseball. It's all about controlling the press so they'll call a certain kind of performance a stunning upset or a smashing victory or stunning defeat. It all depends on the perception of victory going on. None of this matters for the purposes of actual people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I wonder how much of that is from Palin holding her own against Biden being considered a big victory because everyone thought she'd be crushed.
I'm not really sure why else they'd be playing this game.
Well, to be fair, as Lyrhawn points out, expectations were kept dismally low. And in fact, at least according to multiple (sometimes unsourced) accounts of the preparations for the event, Palin had simply had a list prepared of probable topics and memorized her answers- then all she had to do was some very simple interplay where she appeared to be considering Biden's points and reacting to them. It was clear, from where I sat, that everything she said during that debate had been scripted.
Which process isn't really that different from the way that Obama will prepare, except that Obama is actually capable of responding to some of the things that Romney will say in an intelligent way. You notice, if I recall correctly, Palin never actually directly addressed anything that Biden said during the debate with any degree of critical thought. It was less a debate then the recitation of pre-prepared comments.
In a way the really horrifying part of that whole fiasco was how easy it was for Palin to fake the whole thing. And how willing, in the end, the advisors were to let her do it. That they arrived at such a decision speaks to how deeply unprepared they were for the whole campaign.
It was also a losing battle for Biden from the beginning. He's an expert in foreign policy, and it was ridiculous that he would even have to debate someone who appeared to have a high school level understanding of geo-politics (generously). He was going to look like a bully or a cad, and if he didn't, he would appear to be condescending.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, the Palin-Biden debate was less a debate and more a joint press conference.
Most debates usually hew more toward that format than an actual, you know, debate. But I thought, despite received criticism, that 2008 was actually a small step in the right direction.
Moderators were allowed to push past the canned 90 responses and 60 second rebuttals to a free wheeling discussion of the issue where they could ask directed questions to bring up salient points and force the candidates into confronting certain issues. Sometimes the candidates pivoted to their stump speeches, sometimes they answered off the cuff. The town hall debate was probably best of all for getting them to engage each other.
So I have high hopes that this won't be another press conference, but I could be wrong. Romney is given to terse, brief responses wrapped in platitudes and policy statements. Obama tends towards longer professorial answers. We'll see how those styles clash and whether the moderator can wheedle any specifics out of either of them.
I'm just hoping they finally confront each other with the blatant lies they've both been telling about each other.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm almost positive Romney's coaches (not that he listens to them), are trying desperately to hammer out any possibility of him speaking off the cuff in any way. He's so unsubtle about doing this, he even admits that he isn't being direct and won't answer particular questions at all.
Plus, and this is just my personal opinion, Romney's major liability is not knowing or particularly caring what people's problems actually are. It makes him deeply unappealing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I think it might help if he actually cared. I don't go in for a lot of the crap about a lot of Republicans not caring. But Romney? I actually think he doesn't care.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When you're drunk you post political commentary?
I don't think you're doing it right.
This seems sound... But then I consider how much more entertaining both the RNC and the DNC would've been had each of the speakers had six shots of something before-hand. And your argument is lost in the sheer awesome of that hypothetical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A six shots rule is just flat-out being hilariously mean to romney.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
I'm honestly expecting Romney to take on the press, he format, and the moderators - it worked for Newt, and hey, he has nothing else to lose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it worked for Newt in a setting filled with attendees at a Republican primary debate. I could be mistaken, but I think it's safe to say that what appeals to that group isn't going to fly as well in a general election crowd...nor do I think an impassioned series of statements is going to play to Romney's strengths.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I got a campaign fund request from Romney in the mail last night. His letter says I am one of America's most notable republicans. The man is screwed in November.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we stay subscribed to pretty much every republican mass mailer. It's loads of entertainment. The push poll 'questionnaires' are seriously the funniest thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Debates are tonight. Everyone ready?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's go time!
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Romney really took recent criticism to heart. Here he is spewing all sorts of specific quantitative data in his OPENING REMARKS.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So Gov. Romney isn't going to cut taxes? Or is he?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Initial reactions:
Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator.
Romney is absolutely crushing this thing.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
He might sound better on first impression, but I'm not picking up on any specific ideas. Just vague promises. Obama can dish those out, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know, I AM hearing a bunch of specifics. But if this is nothing but them directly hitting each other's ideas, Romney has that down pat so far.
Obama's hits are falling flat.
He keeps saying almost the right thing, but not quite. Way too cautious.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator.
Agreed, though I'm not sure I agree with you on Romney's performance.
But yeah, bad moderation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wish the President didn't look so pissed off. I can understand it; nonsense is fcrustrating. But is doesn't help.
Where does Gov. Romney think the states are going to get all this money to do the things that he wants to leave to the states?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
If Jim Lehrer can't enforce moderation...he needs to go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
This is the problem with highly popular televised debates. They can flat out deny things to each others' faces and it looks really convincing to people at home.
But how many of those people actually do fact checking later?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
The impression I got was that he was calling Romney out and saying that his campaign didn't match his debate position.
If that was his position, though, he did a really poor job getting it across. What he actually accomplished was sounding like a broken record.
That said, Romney did the same thing, albeit more smoothly, with his deficit neutral point on tax breaks. I'm glad Obama called him out when he talked about deficit neutral and tax breaks for the middle class in the same point. If you're keeping it neutral, the breaks need to come from an increase.
Then Obama rambled on for another minute or so without getting called out by the moderator, but that's another issue.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ramble is the key word.
I feel like this is Clinton's DNC speech all over again.
Clinton said everything clearly and understandably. Obama said all the right things, content wise, but the delivery was disjointed and awkward.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Blaming Congress is a losing issue. It's not fair, but if he'd tried that, Romney would have said "A leader gets it done."
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Overall, I could only describe the debate as lackluster.
None of their arguments were new or inventive in any way. Half the time they just agreed with each other.
But ricree, that's not fair to Romney to say that he is not sincere in his effort to reach across the aisle.
Overall, though, I'm dissappointed.
Maybe Jon Stewart and Bill Reilly's debate will be better. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
It wasn't nearly to this degree four years ago.
I think some of what the CNN commentators is saying is true. Obama didn't expect Romney to come out swinging like that, and he was frustrated and annoyed.
And it came out in his performance.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Exactly. Normally Obama's speech is syncopated, yes, but tonight it was stumbling and awkward. Romney in sharp contrast, was in rare form. He didn't even need his zingers!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But the zingers he did use were pretty sharp.
Also, his jokes were funny. That's new.
I'll say this: I was wrong. Romney didn't get smoked like I thought he would, mostly because Obama was either unwilling or unable to hammer away at the inconsistencies in his plan.
The next debate will be very interesting. Obama needs to bring his A+ game.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I haven't watched it all yet, but I agree. Some of Romney's biggest problems, he substantially addressed on a political level. He didn't come off as distant and unpardonable and unconcerned as he has many times in the campaign-when he mentioned that people were hurting, I actually believed he meant it as he was saying it, which is more than I could usually have said.
I was surprised and disappointed that Obama permitted him so much of the momentum, too. Romney was figuratively leaning forward throughout. Didn't notice much in the way, again, of actual details in Romney's plans and felt Obama did a poor job highlighting just how problematic Romney's governing philosophy of 'set objectives and limits, and address the means of attaining or avoiding them as they come up, not in the campaign' really is. He had a big opportunity there and blew it, I think.
I was wryly amused to note that Romney's closing statement was almost entirely an appeal of doom if Obama, so pick me, but politically I'm not sure it will matter.
I remain contemptuous of the format we permit ourselves, even as I was as usual proud at least of our *attempt* to require our leaders to stand up and account for themselves to each other and to us.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Seems to me--and the take I am hearing from many commentators--Romney was dominant in the debate, showing himself to be everything he needs to be: passionate, knowledgeable, with accurate facts readily on hand, able to respond meaningfully, precisely, and forcefully to every point Obama tried to make, correcting Obama's errors effectively. (For example, when Obama claimed businesses were given incentives to relocate overseas, Romney replied that despite all his years in business, he had no idea what Obama was talking about; what Obama said was not the case. Obama had no reply to that.) Obama was stammering a lot, seemed to be looking to the moderator to bail him out several times, and was clearly on defense; while Romney was on offense all the way. Obama without a teleprompter is not a great debater. Romney is. Obama looked down and around a lot, very seldom meeting Romney's eyes; Romney was constantly looking straight at Obama. It was like Obama was being scolded and lectured, and knew it. FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
It may be that Romney's red tie also made exactly the right psychological statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, Romney is far from a great debater, and was today as well. Obama was further, though.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
Just cut to it already and make your prediction that Romney's going to win, so that you can be wrong again, and we can get on with our lives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Polls in the coming days will have much to say on the prediction, but should Romney and Obama mimic yesterday's performance again in their next debate, and perhaps if (though they usually don't matter) Biden lets loose with some major gaffes, it would certainly be at the least less unlikely.
Romney has worked hard to look bad these past few weeks, but he's far from a goner indeed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If Ron Lambert steps up and predicts that Romney is going to win that means Obama is winning with at least 300 E.C. votes. Its how it works.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think maybe he's been terrible for the last month on purpose so that even a lame October would look awesome by comparison?
With the way the 24 hour networks work, that just might work.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
So it looks like Mittens' plan of attack is to lie out the ass?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: So it looks like Mittens' plan of attack is to lie out the ass?
Hey it works with anyone he can get to vote for him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Seems to me--and the take I am hearing from many commentators--Romney was dominant in the debate, showing himself to be everything he needs to be: passionate, knowledgeable, with accurate facts readily on hand, able to respond meaningfully, precisely, and forcefully to every point Obama tried to make, correcting Obama's errors effectively. (For example, when Obama claimed businesses were given incentives to relocate overseas, Romney replied that despite all his years in business, he had no idea what Obama was talking about; what Obama said was not the case. Obama had no reply to that.) Obama was stammering a lot, seemed to be looking to the moderator to bail him out several times, and was clearly on defense; while Romney was on offense all the way. Obama without a teleprompter is not a great debater. Romney is. Obama looked down and around a lot, very seldom meeting Romney's eyes; Romney was constantly looking straight at Obama. It was like Obama was being scolded and lectured, and knew it. FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
It may be that Romney's red tie also made exactly the right psychological statement.
Edit: This argument is completely devoid of nuance.
[ October 04, 2012, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tend to agree with them.
But that may not mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. We'll see.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
I'm not disagreeing that Romney won the debate. But you're seeing a slaughter, where I saw (and I suspect most people)saw a much closer contest.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
As someone who coaches and judges competitive debate, Romney won hands down. That being said, this in no way makes me more likely to vote for him.
When I judge a debate, I'm not allowed to bring in my own biases and/or knowledge of the issues in evaluating who won. If a person misrepresents, misleads, or lies about something, it is the responsibility of the opponent to call them out on it. In other words, I'm not allowed to do the work for the debaters.
As an informed voter, I do my homework on what each candidate offers. I refuse to satisfy myself with cheap, predictable punditry or the promises of the candidate/campaign. The Governor's lack of integrity and tact in this debate makes me even less likely to vote for him (if such a thing were possible, I confess).
When only evaluating the debate in isolation, Governor Romney stomped the President. But I don't look at debates in isolation when it comes time to vote. And "winning" a debate means far less to me than how you've done it. Your opponent failing to call out your (to put it kindly) inconsistencies does not mean you weren't inconsistent. It means your opponent let you win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* The main issue here -- and frankly I am astonished by this, as it had to occur to Obama's people that this was going to be Romney's approach, since it has been the cornerstone of his campaign -- is that Romney shamelessly lied about his stated positions, and Obama had no better way to demonstrate those falsehoods than to whine vaguely about them. That this was not anticipated, and that Obama was not provided with ample material documenting Romney's plan and previous statements of record, surprises me a great deal.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I got two things out of the first hour of the debate.
1. Obama's comment about the classroom in Las Vegas. In a way this should anger democrat voters in my state Maryland, who followed our governor's lead in legalizing gambling because it will solve all of our financial troubles, and all the money would go towards education. I am sure it fell on deaf ears, and had nothing to do with Obama. Sort of. Our governor tweeted some nasty things about Romney, and all I can think about was how his fellow democrat attacked the governor without even knowing it.
2. Romney wants to raise my taxes. He admits it. Lowering tax rates AND deductions/exemptions will raise my family's taxes. As a middle class family of four most of our tax breaks come from our deductions and exemptions. My wife and I total make around 100k, and this past year we only paid about 5.5% to the federal government.
I have always thought that I like democrats in charge of the country, and republicans in charge of my state. This proves it to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: As someone who coaches and judges competitive debate, Romney won hands down. That being said, this in no way makes me more likely to vote for him.
The debates of every election, in a nutshell! (they are not really watched by anyone likely to be swayed by them)
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
tada
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
It's not really a problem in that debate format. If you were having a three way conversation and kept referring to one of the other people as he/she and refused to address them directly then people would raise eyebrows.
There was a debate a few years ago between then Senator Obama and Senator John McCain though,
His using the phrase "that one" to refer to Senator Obama was considered very rude, though I think Senator McCain just got lost in his argument and used the first phrase that came to mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
tada
In my defense, this only works if Obama lets him get away with it.
And Obama let him get away with everything last night.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
It's not really a problem in that debate format. If you were having a three way conversation and kept referring to one of the other people as he/she and refused to address them directly then people would raise eyebrows.
There was a debate a few years ago between then Senator Obama and Senator John McCain though,
His using the phrase "that one" to refer to Senator Obama was considered very rude, though I think Senator McCain just got lost in his argument and used the first phrase that came to mind.
It's also worth remembering that Americans tend to reject deference to our leaders as a matter of principle, which often seems alien to people in other countries.
In case it wasn't clear, I'm specifically responding to Syzmon's comment about "this is the president that Romney's talking about."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In my defense, this only works if Obama lets him get away with it.
And Obama let him get away with everything last night.
Well, it "works" whether or not you "let" your opponent get away with anything — what I'm talking about is what the debates have become.
They're meaningless talking-point-spews where both candidates understand how unimportant the debates ultimately are, the leading candidate knows they need only maintain the status quo, try to get out as many of their talking points and avoid creating a gaffe so large that it actually effects the election.
Both candidates recognize that the game requires talking around both your opponent and the moderator as much as you can manage it, and it is easy to bully around the moderator since they are beholden to the structure in a way which effectively castrates them as actual debate moderators.
Since neither candidate provided a substantial gaffe, this event will not impact the election and you can give romney a little trophy for winning the debate (which he did, obama looked like he had been up all last night and just slammed a five hour energy to try to get through the debate), and we all move on and get just a little bit depressed over the fact that news analysts thought that tonight's pablum was "too much specific policy talk for the American people to follow."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
jim lehrer was an exceptionally piss-poor moderator last night though
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What was as important as recitation of facts and correction of the opponent's errors, was indeed overall appearances. Romney just appearing on the same stage with the president made Romney look a lot more plausible as a candidate. Then Romney capitalized on it by being on the offense continually, looking straight at Obama, while Obama could hardly ever meet Romney's eyes.
Romney rebutted every claim put forth by Obama, citing specifics, including various acts and congressional reports that Obama has largely been ignoring. When Obama claimed that businesses were getting tax breaks for outsourcing or relocating to other countries, that opened the way for Romney to remind everyone that unlike Obama (who never so much as managed a lemonade stand), he had 23 years of experience as a successful businessman, and he had no idea what Obama was talking about. The fact is that corporations do not outsource or relocate to other countries so they can get a tax break, they do those things because of the cheaper labor costs in other countries. For Obama not to know this betrayed abysmal ignorance on his part. He was arguing on the basis of campaign ad propaganda, rather than facts.
Obama plain and simple got blown out of the water, clearly outclassed by a superior mind possessing real exprience in business. You would almost have to expect this, since the first debate was on the economy, an area where Romney has the education and the experience to run circles around Obama.
Obama could be nothing but vulnerable, considering the dire state of the nation's economy after nearly four years of his administration.
If I remember right, the next presidential debate will be on foreign policy. Obama should have the benefit of nearly four years of daily briefings from the intelligence services. But how much attention has he paid to them? Has he even read them? The extraordinary failure and collapse of his foreign policy in the Middle East will have to make him vulnerable again, in the next debate with Romney.
But you know, the reason why Obama was so ineffective in the debate was the fact that he has been coddled and protected for the past nearly four years. He hardly ever has a press conference. The mainstream media tends to favor him, and seldom takes him to task for anything. He has surrounded himself with people who only say what he wants to hear. So of course when he meets a serious debate opponent, he gives the impression of being hammered, and looks down most of the time (Dennis Miller suggested that maybe he had a teleprompter on his belt buckle), or to Lehrer hoping the moderator would bail him out.
I just wonder how Obama would fare in any face-to-face talks with people like the leader of Iran, or of Venezuela, or China. We already know that in his previous world tours, what he has wound up doing is apologizing for America.
Romney took exactly the right tone--going after Obama forcefully, with energy and passion and ready detailed facts to cite. He said that Obama was not accurate, but never used the blatant words, "You are a liar," though he certainly could have. He knew it would have been perceived as tacky to speak that rudely to the president. Romney got the point across effectively by saying things like, "As president, you get your own plane and your own house--but you do not get to have your own facts." Another time, when Obama kept repeating his misrepesentation of Romney's tax plan despite Romney correcting him about it twice, Romney said he has five sons, and thus he was familiar with people repeating the same story over and over again, hoping that it would be believed if they said it often enough.
OK, Parkour, since you keep asking for it. I predict Romney will win the election by double digits. If he keeps up his winning performance in the future debates, Obama might be persuaded to vote for him. (Tongue-in-cheek.)
I wonder if Obama will contrive, or try to contrive, some excuse for him not to show up for the remaining two presidential debates. He is such a narcissist, he has to hate being battered so badly as he was in last night's debate, and realistically, what hope can he have of doing any better, when Romney so clearly outclasses him?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I predict Romney will win the election by double digits.
Is this part NOT tongue-in-cheek?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I am thinking of the 1980 election, where former governor Ronald Reagan entered the debates double-digits behind President Jimmy Carter, and after the debates he had managed to turn things around so that he defeated Carter in the election by double-digits.
Like Carter, Obama has had four years of presiding over a terrible economy. (Carter even invented what he called "the misery index.") Like Reagan, Romney is showing himself to be more "presidential" than the incumbent president. And so far, Romney is prevailing so overwhelmingly in the debating, that even supporters of Obama had to admit that Romney was the clear winner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Answer my question. Is that your sincere prediction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I am thinking of the 1980 election, where former governor Ronald Reagan entered the debates double-digits behind President Jimmy Carter, and after the debates he had managed to turn things around so that he defeated Carter in the election by double-digits.
Like Carter, Obama has had four years of presiding over a terrible economy. (Carter even invented what he called "the misery index.") Like Reagan, Romney is showing himself to be more "presidential" than the incumbent president. And so far, Romney is prevailing so overwhelmingly in the debating, that even supporters of Obama had to admit that Romney was the clear winner.
Sure, but that doesn't mean Obama supporters are going to vote for Romney based on that performance. I think he won the debate, but he didn't win my vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Really when I say that both candidates understand how meaningless the debates are, it needs to be importantly underlined: winning the debates means crap-all. I said this last debate. I have tried to remind people of this constantly. The presidential debates are all but completely meaningless, even the ones that we call "the historic debates."
quote:Gallup, for instance, reviewed their polls going back to 1960 and concluded they “reveal few instances in which the debates may have had a substantive impact on election outcomes.” Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, in “The Timeline of Presidential Elections,” looked at a much broader array of polls and concluded that there was “there is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” Political scientist John Sides, summarizing a careful study by James Stimson, writes that there’s “little evidence of [debate] game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000.
When Ron implies in a slippery post-hoc way that Reagan's debate performance resulted in or can be considered a major factori in his turnaround, he's wrong. Not that it is surprising, he's wrong about just about everything else: for instance, Carter was neither ahead of Reagan in the popular vote by double digits (It was actually Carter 45, Reagan 42), nor did Reagan win against Carter by double digits.
I know, Ron Lambert factually incorrect about something, major shocker, news at 11.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What was as important as recitation of facts and correction of the opponent's errors, was indeed overall appearances. Romney just appearing on the same stage with the president made Romney look a lot more plausible as a candidate. Then Romney capitalized on it by being on the offense continually, looking straight at Obama, while Obama could hardly ever meet Romney's eyes.
Romney rebutted every claim put forth by Obama, citing specifics, including various acts and congressional reports that Obama has largely been ignoring. When Obama claimed that businesses were getting tax breaks for outsourcing or relocating to other countries, that opened the way for Romney to remind everyone that unlike Obama (who never so much as managed a lemonade stand), he had 23 years of experience as a successful businessman, and he had no idea what Obama was talking about. The fact is that corporations do not outsource or relocate to other countries so they can get a tax break, they do those things because of the cheaper labor costs in other countries. For Obama not to know this betrayed abysmal ignorance on his part. He was arguing on the basis of campaign ad propaganda, rather than facts.
Obama plain and simple got blown out of the water, clearly outclassed by a superior mind possessing real exprience in business. You would almost have to expect this, since the first debate was on the economy, an area where Romney has the education and the experience to run circles around Obama.
Obama could be nothing but vulnerable, considering the dire state of the nation's economy after nearly four years of his administration.
If I remember right, the next presidential debate will be on foreign policy. Obama should have the benefit of nearly four years of daily briefings from the intelligence services. But how much attention has he paid to them? Has he even read them? The extraordinary failure and collapse of his foreign policy in the Middle East will have to make him vulnerable again, in the next debate with Romney.
But you know, the reason why Obama was so ineffective in the debate was the fact that he has been coddled and protected for the past nearly four years. He hardly ever has a press conference. The mainstream media tends to favor him, and seldom takes him to task for anything. He has surrounded himself with people who only say what he wants to hear. So of course when he meets a serious debate opponent, he gives the impression of being hammered, and looks down most of the time (Dennis Miller suggested that maybe he had a teleprompter on his belt buckle), or to Lehrer hoping the moderator would bail him out.
I just wonder how Obama would fare in any face-to-face talks with people like the leader of Iran, or of Venezuela, or China. We already know that in his previous world tours, what he has wound up doing is apologizing for America.
Romney took exactly the right tone--going after Obama forcefully, with energy and passion and ready detailed facts to cite. He said that Obama was not accurate, but never used the blatant words, "You are a liar," though he certainly could have. He knew it would have been perceived as tacky to speak that rudely to the president. Romney got the point across effectively by saying things like, "As president, you get your own plane and your own house--but you do not get to have your own facts." Another time, when Obama kept repeating his misrepesentation of Romney's tax plan despite Romney correcting him about it twice, Romney said he has five sons, and thus he was familiar with people repeating the same story over and over again, hoping that it would be believed if they said it often enough.
OK, Parkour, since you keep asking for it. I predict Romney will win the election by double digits. If he keeps up his winning performance in the future debates, Obama might be persuaded to vote for him. (Tongue-in-cheek.)
I wonder if Obama will contrive, or try to contrive, some excuse for him not to show up for the remaining two presidential debates. He is such a narcissist, he has to hate being battered so badly as he was in last night's debate, and realistically, what hope can he have of doing any better, when Romney so clearly outclasses him?
Obama has the benefit of being president 4 years as far as foreign policy is concerned, but for running an organization he is still in lemonade stand territory? As if running multiple campaigns and the whole Executive Branch counts for 0 experience?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
BlackBlade, don't you know? Obama hasn't held a real job in his entire life. Four years of being President of the United States hardly gives a person the necessary experience or insight into what it takes to be President of the United States.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The early bit about NPR may have a nasty backlash and ruin Governor Romney's debate win.
Mr. Romney said something along the lines of "I will cut all funding to PBS. I like you Tom. I like Big Bird. But I don't like you enough to borrow money from China to keep you on the air."
Within minutes a twitter feed was created, @firedbigbird
Within 10 minutes it had over 2700 followers, and it grew from there.
It a fun feed to follow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's amazing.
Run on a platform underpinned by a mathematically impossible tax plan full of lies and also lies and ... eh, you sorta get away with it, but oh man the second you threaten the integrity of puppets you watched as a kid oh now that's crossing a line lets go lets do this
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
I'm not disagreeing that Romney won the debate. But you're seeing a slaughter, where I saw (and I suspect most people)saw a much closer contest.
~something interesting about that poll~
quote:
So, I was looking at the crosstabs on CNN's snap poll of "registered Americans" after the debate claiming Romney won the debate 69-25. They start on page 8:
Notice anything funny? According to the breakout, all the people surveyed are white, 50+, and from the South. Are they being serious with this? I know the media loves a horserace, and I'll admit Obama was less passionate and shouty than Mitt, but it's pretty hard not to ascribe a motive to their selection process.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could be just that CNN is in Atlanta and they used local people?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
A lot of factors are going to be taken into account with this election. No matter what Obama says (within the realm of possibilities, of course) and no matter how well Mittins attacks and wins debates, Obama will still have the minority vote, which has in recent years become the majority. He also has the poor vote, which makes up a large class of people in the US. He literally could go sit in the white house and ignore everything between now and the election and he would still have a very good chance at winning the election.
With all that being said, I think Romney won the debate, hands down. He came out of nowhere with his arguments and I don't think the President was prepared for that. In fact, it seemed like the President was overconfident and, quite possibly, preoccupied with other things (probably with being President, since he still has that job). But who knows?
I thought it was funny there at the end when the two of them huddled up together with their families. I wonder what was said and if there was any spite between them?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
oh, probably not a whole lot. well, maybe. who even knows. I am sure on some level they know it's all what the game is bound to be, but they might just legitimately loathe each other
/edit - hey guess who posted on the wrong account again gdi
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: oh, probably not a whole lot. well, maybe. who even knows. I am sure on some level they know it's all what the game is bound to be, but they might just legitimately loathe each other
/edit - hey guess who posted on the wrong account again gdi
There's medication for that Sam, you need professional help!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, goodness yes, Obama has the minority vote (which is now the majority...ummm, what?) just by default...or something. 'The poor', too, in spite of the fact that Mitt does very well with substantial segments of lower income voters who, you know, agree with him politically. Obama can just coast and have a chance. Romney has to work or something, I guess, goes this peculiar and troubling reasoning.
It's not as though Obama has done more for those voters (or perhaps offended less) that results in that support, rather than some...inborn...traits.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, does it matter to you how much of Romney's forceful, alpha-male posturing has been shown to be inaccurate at best and outright lying at worst?
His $5 trillion tax plan may be revenue-neutral, as he claims. But he also offers no way to make that work without raising taxes or slashing everything from the federal budget but military spending. The math doesn't work. If that's what he plans, fine, admit it and let people vote on it.
In response to Obama's comments about the CBO's conclusions, Romney referenced 6 other studies. Problem was, all but one of those were from Romney backers (2 were just blog posts) and the one was from G.W. Bush's economic advisor who makes it sort of work by assuming a growth effect that's very unlikely to happen.
Romney claimed that Obamacare would ration health care prccedures. Not true. From the beginning it's been known that the board has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care. It's tasked to find ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending but has no, repeat, no power to limit any individual care or procedure. This was a deliberate callback to Palin's mythical "death panels."
Obama has not doubled the deficit, no matter how many times Romney says he has. The deficit at the start of his term was $1.2 trillion.
Romney said “the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year.” That was their worst-case scenario. Most likely was 3 to 5 million, and in the best case more people, not fewer, would be covered. Romney also said under his plan, people with pre-existing conditions would be covered, and his own campaign has admitted that's not quite true.
"50% of college graduates can't find work." Untrue. 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 were unemployed or underemployed in 2011, but that doesn't count all college grads (A.A., A.S. trades schools, etc) and it includes those who have a part-time job or a job for which they are underqualified.
Over and over Romney said Obama was slashing Medicare of $716 billion. That's a reduction over 10 years, not the sudden gutting of the program this year as he made it sound, and it's being done to extend Medicare's trust fund another 8 years.
He seemed to support Simpson-Bowles but failed to mention that his running mate was the person who scuttled it.
He said there is no tax break for moving jobs overseas, but under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country and they don't have to pay tax on foreign profits if they don't bring the money back into the country. That's not so much a tax break as a tax loophole, but Democratic efforts to close it have been shot down.
The claim I laughed at was Romney's mention of bipartisanship. The health care plan in Mass. was based despite him, not because of his bipartisan efforts. Dems had to fight against his constant veto efforts to dismantle the bill.
And Obama spent far too much time, in my opinion, in the beginning of his term trying to work with Republicans who openly stated their goal was to bring him down. He used Republican ideas, which somehow magically became socialist in the transition. The GOP filibustered over 360 times since 2007 (link) to keep Dem and Administration plans at a standstill.
Sadly, he's probably right. Romney is more likely to get bipartisan movement, if only because some Dems will grit their teeth and work with the GOP to get something down, whereas the GOP flat out refuses to work with Obama for anything at all.
Obama certainly had his share of fact-stretching and fuzzy math and he's been called on it by the same fact-checkers, but nowhere on Mitt's scale. Romney won the debate -- and he clearly won it -- by being loud, talking over everyone else, and repeating his lies so many times Obama was unable to keep up with them all.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, goodness yes, Obama has the minority vote (which is now the majority...ummm, what?)
A study was done recently on the American populous which stated that the minorities (which are generally assumed to be anyone not Caucasian or of European descent) are no longer minorities if they are pooled together into a single mass of individuals. It's a common idea that has been around for a few years now. The idea here is that if you can rally the minority vote (the Hispanics, African Americans, etc), you can overtake the majority vote. Obama appeals to the minority vote more than Romney does. Yes, there are surely exceptions, but people are generally more likely to pick the guy who can relate to them and who appears to have their best interest in mind. Obama has said time and time again that he is going to look out for the lower class, he's spent a lot of time in his career before Washington working with the poor, and he knows how to talk to them.
Romney is a rich white guy. For some people, that's all they need to know. I know that sounds like an awful thing to say, but it's true. It's the same reason a lot of old-fashioned ignorant racists won't vote for Obama, mostly based off the fact that he's a black man. I know because I am constantly surrounded by both sides and I hear all about it. The African American woman who works with me has told me (when I asked, of course) that she was voting for Obama, not because of his politics (she only knows he's a Democrat), but because "he's black and we have to support him". That's what she told me. On the complete opposite side of that, I've got my step-father, a southern, somewhat ignorant 60 year old white guy who is convinced that Obama can't do a good job, simply because he's a black guy (although he prefers to use the N word when speaking about the man). Both perspectives are insane and ignorant, but they exist, and those are not the only two people that I have met who think like that.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? Another study was brought up a few months ago on CNN news that stated that a Presidential candidate was 80% more likely to get elected if they were already President. That automatically gives Obama leverage. Certainly, it doesn't secure his victory, but it puts him in quite the position, which is probably why he doesn't seem to be sweating it too much. Remember back in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election and nobody thought he would win again because everyone seemed to think he was an idiot? Remember how he won anyway? Better to keep the idiot you know than trust the one you don't. That's politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The notion that we can lump all individual minorities into one big lump and count 'em as their no-longer-minority proportion is...problematic. Or does Obama simultaneously appeal to blacks, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians, Native Americans, so on and so forth just...I'm still not sure why exactly, because he 'speaks effectively' to them or something? Look at just how problematic considering even a few of those groups individually homogenous is, much less all of them together, and perhaps consider thinking twice about the notion that Obama has their vote sewn up by default.
Possibly it involves Romney not really appealing to them on his side, as well as Obama's mysterious appeal. Or should we look at Dubya's performance among Latino voters to quickly dispel this notion?
Now, as for refusing to vote for a rich white guy and refusing to vote for a less rich black guy, they're not in fact the same. While I don't think it's a good thing, refusing to vote for someone simply because they're hugely wealthy isn't quite the same thing as refusing to vote for someone because they're black. In the former case, it involves a (bad, when made on ghat basis alone) decision based on a status one has control over. The other is what they're born with.
Furthermore, it's always strange to me, as well as amusing and frankly a bit offensive, at how quick members of a majority can be to equate the more virulent bigots of their side to members of the minority on the other side voting for the first candidate that is more like them.
Sorry. It's the same. They're not both equally insane or ignorant. One view is explicitly held out of contempt and hatred on racial lines. The other is held to support one's own racial group, the first of their kind so to speak with a shot at the majors. Perhaps if you say 'that's ignorant' there might be some discussion to be had, but there's not when you assume the ONLY reason she supports him is because of the color of his skin. Do you think she doesn't have a belief that he will understand her better, that she can relate to him better, that she feels like she will like his politics better? Or should we talk some more about how that's the same as someone refusing to vote for a n*%#ger?
Your analysis of politics runs contrary to much of what is known about presidential campaigns. Conventional wisdom hardly favors incumbents in time of ongoing recession! You continually speak as though Obama's (current, and not at all major of longstanding) lead is only due to...inertia and unknown but easily guessed at minority vote motives.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: A study was done recently on the American populous which stated that the minorities (which are generally assumed to be anyone not Caucasian or of European descent) are no longer minorities if they are pooled together into a single mass of individuals.
Do you have a source for this? From what I can find, the white non-Hispanic/non-Latino population is 66 percent of the total population, and those numbers apparently come from the census (end of the second paragraph).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seems dubious to me too, the pivot date reported here is 2040.
quote:But a recent slowdown in the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations is shifting notions on when the tipping point in U.S. diversity will come — the time when non-Hispanic whites become a minority. After 2010 census results suggested a crossover as early as 2040, demographers now believe the pivotal moment may be pushed back several years when new projections are released in December. The annual growth rates for Hispanics and Asians fell sharply last year to just over 2 percent, roughly half the rates in 2000 and the lowest in more than a decade. The black growth rate stayed flat at 1 percent.
(Or for comparison, Toronto will only cross 50% by 2017)
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well Rakeesh, I suppose we shall see what happens.
To answer your question, I had a fairly involving discussion with my coworker about this, and the answer and reasoning I was given was that, yes, she was going to vote for Obama for the same reason she voted for him the first time, which was simply that he is a black man, and she didn't care about any of the stats or stances or any of it. Believe me, I asked several questions, and most of the time she just laughed casually about it and said she didn't care about the political hooplah. "Romney's an old rich white guy", she told me. "Obama's black so he'll look after his own." That's all she needed to know. She said she didn't have the time or energy to do all that research anyway. And besides, if a black guy became the president, that was a win.
And yes, race played a role in the last election, just like it's going to play one this time around. If you don't think people went out and voted simply because they wanted to support someone of the same race, then that is delusional. Most of these people (on both sides) were not very informed about it; they just wanted to support or slam Obama because he was black. Race is very important when it comes to the election. You might not think Americans are that one dimensional about certain things, but they are. People are shallow and selfish, swayed by silly words and pretty faces. If you don't think that's true, you really don't understand America.
But I digress, when the election happens, my prediction is that Obama wins. He's got too many groups behind him. He's not white, he's already the President, he appeals to the lower class, and he's a democrat. Each of those groups will land him a TON of votes. Romney is a republican, an old rich white guy (very unrelatable), and he's never been President. Sure, to you and me, these might be silly things to focus on, but not for most of America. For most people, these are precisely what they'll look at, because that's all they've had time to notice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My primary dispute, though I take issue with several other things you claimed on factual or reasoning grounds, was the equivalence you suggested between refusing to vote for a n*%%er and endorsing a black man because he'll look out for his own, supposedly.
You might have meant they're both racist or mostly racially motivated, though you'd be wrong in the former and have a case in the latter. But to equate them is to say that a member of a minority who votes for a member of a minority, the first to contend, for that reason is just as objectionable as the guy who won't vote for a n*%#er.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Seems dubious to me too, the pivot date reported here is 2040.
Now that you mention this, I think you're right. I am pretty sure that the study I was referring to was saying that it was going to happen soon, not that it already had. Apologies for that. We were shown the numbers in a humanities class a few years ago, when our professor broke it all down for us and explained that pretty soon (he gave dates, but I can't for the life of me remember them) the population was going to see a huge shift in minority/majority numbers, and that Caucasians were in turn going to be the minority (but still the majority if you take each race separately).
Anyway, my original point was simply that the minorities make up, when pooled together, a powerfully large number of votes that can stagger the election in whichever way they see fit. And in this particular election's case, Obama holds that vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and as for not understanding America...you are arguing that an incumbent minority contender is *more* advantaged in a time of ongoing major recession with the end only dubiously in sight, whose presidency has been mired in that recession throughout.
Tell me some more about who understands how elections work? Tell me more about how if Romney loses, it won't be so much his fault because Obama had a lock in the first place? Perhaps this ties directly in with your drastic overstatement of minority political power in this country. You're just enormously, and I mean by non-whites would need to double their current numbers to be neck and neck, wrong about that.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: My primary dispute, though I take issue with several other things you claimed on factual or reasoning grounds, was the equivalence you suggested between refusing to vote for a n*%%er and endorsing a black man because he'll look out for his own, supposedly.
You might have meant they're both racist or mostly racially motivated, though you'd be wrong in the former and have a case in the latter. But to equate them is to say that a member of a minority who votes for a member of a minority, the first to contend, for that reason is just as objectionable as the guy who won't vote for a n*%#er.
Why is it wrong for a white guy to not vote for a black guy because he's black, but it's okay for a black guy to vote for a black guy because he's black? If both of these voters are unwilling to listen to the other side, then how is it not racist? By definition, isn't racism a statement that you will treat someone a certain way simply because of their race? Wouldn't it be racist to vote for Obama because he is black, and not for Romney because he is white? By your own logic, voting for Romney because he is white is racist, but not so for the guy who votes for Obama because he is black. I don't know, Rakeesh, they both sound pretty racially motivated to me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm not so sure about the "stagger the election in whichever way they see fit" part. I guess if you assume that minorities all vote the same way AND a lot of white people vote that way too, then it might be true (assuming that they all vote in the first place). But whites still outnumber minorities 2:1.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and as for not understanding America...you are arguing that an incumbent minority contender is *more* advantaged in a time of ongoing major recession with the end only dubiously in sight, whose presidency has been mired in that recession throughout.
Yes, and if Romney wins or actually gets close to winning, you can come back and slam it back in my face. I won't even mind, honest. Not even a little bit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok. Just to be very clear, you're saying it's equally problematic to refuse to vote for a n*%#er as it is to vote for a member of your own minority on the basis of race and believing he will look out for his own?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, Rakeesh, I'm confused.
With your sarcastic remark to Jeff, are you implying it's not racist to vote for someone simply because they are a member of your race? Or it's only not racist if you and the person you're voting for are minorities? Or only not racist if you're just doing it 'cause you think the guy you're voting for is racist? Or what?
Or is it just that, yeah, it's racist, but it's less bad racism? Still despicable though, right?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I'm not so sure about the "stagger the election in whichever way they see fit" part. I guess if you assume that minorities all vote the same way AND a lot of white people vote that way too, then it might be true (assuming that they all vote in the first place). But whites still outnumber minorities 2:1.
40% of the population is a large number of people, Jon. Maybe some of them vote for Romney, but I think it's a safe bet to say that most will follow Obama. Even if they don't all vote, many will. Couple that with the Democratic vote and you've got a pretty large group of people backing the man in the pretty chair for another term in office.
But who knows? Maybe they'll decide they prefer Mittins in office. After all, he did make that remark about 47% of Americans being freeloaders (or did he call them stupid? Oh well, I don't remember).
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok. Just to be very clear, you're saying it's equally problematic to refuse to vote for a n*%#er as it is to vote for a member of your own minority on the basis of race and believing he will look out for his own?
Yes, Rakeesh, because morally speaking they are completely the same. It is still racism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: ... By definition, isn't racism a statement that you will treat someone a certain way simply because of their race?
Technically, not really.
For example, "racism ... any action, practice, or belief that reflects ... that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488187/racism
For example, you could be blind (and deaf) and treat everyone exactly the same. But you'd still be racist if you believe that black people are inferior to white people.
Going the other way, if you give black people only red Smarties and white people only green Smarties yet believe all races are equal (or races don't exist), despite treating races differently, you wouldn't be racist because your candy giving doesn't reflect anything except for your own strangeness.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Obama certainly had his share of fact-stretching and fuzzy math and he's been called on it by the same fact-checkers, but nowhere on Mitt's scale. Romney won the debate -- and he clearly won it -- by being loud, talking over everyone else, and repeating his lies so many times Obama was unable to keep up with them all.
Chris, I quoted some bits of this with credit given to you on Facebook. I hope you don't mind.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Going the other way, if you give black people only red Smarties and white people only green Smarties
Best. Analogy. Ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You didn't say 'large number' before, Jeff. You said it's the majority vote. This is factually wrong, by a wide margin.
--------
Dan, not despicable at all in one case. Unwise and foolish I would say, and racially motivated and even racist. Despicable? Don't make me laugh. It never ceases to amaze me (and this is only partially addressed to you and Jeff) at just how quickly whites in our country insist minorities just get past letting racial concerns color their vision, or else be deemed the same as the guys who long for days of fire hoses and attack dogs.
It's not the same, and it's not despicable. Just for fun, how many minority members are there in Congress? How many women? But no, we say, secure in the ability not to take a critical look at ourselves in the majority. Any decision made by minorities or women to vote on the basis of this enormous, staggering example of just how far we have to go...it's despicable somehow. It's just as racist as the guy who won't vote for a n*^%er.
Bunk.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Women aren't even a minority for that matter, which underscores how far we (both countries) need to go.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You didn't say 'large number' before, Jeff. You said it's the majority vote. This is factually wrong, by a wide margin.
--------
Dan, not despicable at all in one case. Unwise and foolish I would say, and racially motivated and even racist. Despicable? Don't make me laugh. It never ceases to amaze me (and this is only partially addressed to you and Jeff) at just how quickly whites in our country insist minorities just get past letting racial concerns color their vision, or else be deemed the same as the guys who long for days of fire hoses and attack dogs.
It's not the same, and it's not despicable. Just for fun, how many minority members are there in Congress? How many women? But no, we say, secure in the ability not to take a critical look at ourselves in the majority. Any decision made by minorities or women to vote on the basis of this enormous, staggering example of just how far we have to go...it's despicable somehow. It's just as racist as the guy who won't vote for a n*^%er.
Bunk.
Weird.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think you're describing two things here, Rakeesh, and conflating them. But there's an important difference between them. Let me see if I can articulate it.
The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Don't make me laugh.
quote: It's not the same, and it's not despicable.
Now you're reaching into morally gray terrain. I agree with you that it's a great thing to push for progress and equality, but when you vote for someone without knowing their politics, and instead you vote because they have the same skin color that you do, well, that's pretty awful. Heck, it's downright despicable.
Why? Because you are cheating the American people (and yourself) out of the best chance they have of getting the best leader. Sure, you're pushing your own race forward (or your sex), but is that decision right for your country? Not necessarily.
Furthermore, no matter how you look at it, both are committing stupid acts of prejudice. You are throwing out the other candidate because of their race, and that's wrong. You can gloss over the reasoning and say it's because of this or because of that, but it's still wrong.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, I can see how it's not technically racism by the definition Mucus posted. It's making a decision based on race when it's supposed to be based on merit, but you're doing it for Social Justice, not because you think whites are inferior.
So if the only motivation that is racist is that you think X race is superior to Y race, then you're right, it's not racist.
I think a lot of us intuitively use something more akin to the old MLK quote to define racism: judging someone by their skin color instead of the content of their ideas.
So, assuming this usage, can you explain how what I described in my above post isn't racist?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can't assume that usage because I think what is eloquent in a speech isn't necessarily what reflects reality.
ex: pollsters have to treat people differently by race
quote:Over-sampling is the “selective application of a higher sampling fraction to rare sub-groups of particular interest in the population studied, s as to ensure that the final sample includes a sufficient number of these rare cases to permit separate analysis” • Screeners can be included within a survey design in order to facilitate location of the rare population within the frame population
By the over-simplified definition of "treat someone a certain way simply because of their race" that would be racist, but I would argue that it is not.
Edit to add: Alternatively, I probably should have just looked up the guy's views
quote:King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."
King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).
In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."
[ October 05, 2012, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: 40% of the population is a large number of people, Jon. Maybe some of them vote for Romney, but I think it's a safe bet to say that most will follow Obama.
It's 34%, not 40%. It is a large number of people, but it's very clearly in the minority. I still think it's a pretty big assumption that most will vote and that most of those that vote will follow Obama. Voter turnout is usually around 50% or so in general elections, and it's lower for minorities than for whites.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just to inform this discussion with some (more) numbers:
- African-Americans, who constitute about 12% of the US population, have overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic candidate for President since 1932, regardless of that candidate's race. A large part of this is that Democratic policies are viewed as favorable to the poor, and in the US being black and being poor is correlated. However, the Democratic share of the black vote did increase significantly in 2008 (from 88% in 2004 to 95% in 2008) and it's expected to be just as high this year, if not higher. To me, this indicates that there is possibly a racial component to the support for Obama among the black share of the electorate.
- The overall effect is difficult to disentagle, however, from broader societal effects. Obama's share of the white vote increased by appr. 5% over Kerry's, indicating that some or all of the 7% shift in the black population is probably explainable by non-racial exogenous effects.
- Another interesting effect is that, despite being a fairly constant proportion of the overall population, African-Americans' share of the electorate has increased in each of the last four presidential elections, with the biggest increase coming last year (when they went from 11% of the electorate to 12%).
- The story of Latinos is similar to that of blacks. In previous elections, their vote share has been quite a bit smaller than their population share, however this has been slowly changing over time. That said, while African-Americans' population share and voter share are now approximately equal, Latinos (who make up appr. 16.5% of the population) still are significantly underrepresented in the voting population (only 9% of the voting population). They also disproportionately vote for Democrats, and have for several elections. However, the proportions aren't significantly different than whites with similar economic traits, who also tend to vote for Democrats, although Latinos do consistently vote at slightly higher levels for Democrats than their white economic counterparts.
- With respect to Congress, 82% of Representatives are white, 10% are black, 6% are Latino or Hispanic, 2% are something else (mostly Asian). In the Senate, 96% of Senators are white, 2% are Latino or Hispanic, and 2% are Asian (there are currently no African-American senators).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Two things, Mucus: I didn't say "treat someone a different way because of their race." That's vague enough that it includes, say, a clothing designer who picks a different color scheme for a black person than they did for a white person. Of course there are examples where treating someone differently based on race makes sense.
I didn't say that, though. I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I paraphrased his quote because I think the quote, broadly speaking, matches the intuitive definition of racism that I hold: Judging someone not by their ideas but by their race.
If someone says "No way I'm voting for that guy, he's black," then they are being racist. Even if they don't think blacks are inferior to whites, and instead they just expect that black people will probably "look out for their own" and pass policies that hurt white people. I still think that's racist.
You and Rakeesh don't, I guess? Do you think that your position is the more common? You think most people, if I described the above paragraph, would say: "Nah, he's not racist, because to be racist you have to think another race is inferior. He just doesn't trust black people not to screw him over. Makes sense."
Final thought: Is anti-semitism racist? Because this mentality is incredibly common in anti-semites. Many of them would vehemently deny thinking Jews are inferior, they just think Jews are looking to control society and screw over all non-Jews.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some FNC commentators are predicting that since Obama was blown out of the water by Romney in the first debate, Obama and crew will resort to even nastier, more negative campaigning, especially including playing the race card.
The Obama supporters are in a total panic about Obama's poor performance in the debate, and are coming up with anything they can think of to excuse it. Chris Matthews (ol' tingle-foot) of MSNBC was nearly hysterical, waving his arms and crying "What happened to Obama?" Al Gore pointed out that Obama arrived in Denver only a couple of hours before the debate, while Romney had been there for several days doing his debate prep there, so that Obama did not have time to adjust to the thinner air at Denver's 5,000 foot altitude.
It is ironic that Obama and his crew would claim that Romney has changed his positions, when one of the main characteristics of Obama's campaigning in 2008 was changing his position constantly, literally from campaign stop to campaign stop, to make it more agreeable to whatever group he was addressing. This is one of the things that tipped me off right away that he was a fake. Obama probably figures that since he does it as a matter of routine, Romney must be doing it too. Obama is the worst liar and deliberate deceiver in the history of American politics. For him to accuse a genuinely religious and moral and honorable and accomplished man such as Mitt Romney of being a liar is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Even if Romney's position has "evolved" over the years, that would be better than stubbornly holding on to a position that ought to be changed. A president must have such flexibility as truth unfolds to him.
But has Romney actually been inconsistent? Or is it rather the case that his position is inconsistent with the way Democrats have been continually misrepresenting his position? There is little more pitiable than a politician who believes his own propaganda, and confuses his campaign ads with the truth.
Romney has now said emphatically before an estimated audience of close to 70 million people that he is not going to lower taxes for the rich, and is not going to raise taxes for the middle class. He made a number of definite declarations. It will be interesting to see how well he sticks by his promises and fulfills them when he is president. And will he get the same positive results that Ronald Reagan did, when Reagan pursued the same policies Romney espouses?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey ron I posed a very simple direct question to you and you have not answered it yet.
Answer my question!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I didn't say "treat someone a different way because of their race."
Jeff C did, I'm addressing both parties at once.
quote:I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I disagree. MLK is obviously an important figure in your societies racial history so I think his experience in having a dream and implementing that dream is highly instructive.
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur
This is an important point. The "racist" that picks the black couple to rent their home even though there was a more qualified white couple strictly because they felt that it would be easier for the white couple to find another place is a different category of person than the "racist" that turns down the most qualified couple because he doesn't want "those people" living in his house.
We can call them both racist but we aren't really talking about the same thing when we do so because the connotative baggage of the word "racism" is too heavy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
One of his "definite declarations" was that under his plan, people with pre-existing conditions would still be covered. This is completely untrue, something his campaign admitted previously and again under questioning after the campaign. Romney's model is to make sure people with "continuous coverage" -- i.e. "already have health care" -- won't be dropped if conditions develop or they change plans. It does nothing for people without coverage at all. And that's already the law!
"Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan," Romney said. Lie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
I am cartwheeling in to give a retro-80's double thumbs up to this.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Over the last few months Romney has specified $5 trillion in tax cuts, a 20% cut in income tax rates, a 40% cut in the corporate tax rate, repeal of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax and elimination of taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for households with incomes below $200,000. he has not said how he will pay for this, beyond a vague mention of limiting exemptions and this week's talk of a deductions cap, neither of which come close to filling the gap. Where's the money coming from, Ron? Shuttering PBS?
(Psst: Reagan did it, in part, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act by increasing capital gains taxes and treating them like ordinary income. Think Romney will be doing that?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the five trillion tax cuts figure Obama hammered Romney on is one that seems true, then upon closer examination looks like it is not actually true, but then the numbers come in and, it is true. Not that it's any big deal that it is easy to hammer on a completely impossible lie of a tax plan, but
.. jesus, it sounds like such dramatic hyperbole to call it a 'completely impossible lie of a tax plan' but it is not intellectually dishonest at all to call it that aah.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jeff, I note that you still haven't addressed your major factual inaccuracy earlier in this discussion re: just how large the minority population in this country is.
quote:Yes, Rakeesh, because morally speaking they are completely the same. It is still racism.
Alright. For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that they're both completely racism. They're not, but let's just move past that. They're completely the same? Someone who votes on the basis of attempting to see their own minority race, still seriously disadvantaged economically, politically, in terms of education, in representation, so on and so forth, is completely the same as the person who says he won't vote for someone because they're a racial slur?
One person is, by their vote, explicitly attempting to keep a race down just because that race is inferior. The other person is explicitly trying to lift their own race up, because of the perception (factually accurate) that their race is not getting a fair shake in our society just yet. Both are decisions informed by racial politics. I see what you mean when you claim they're both racist, though as Mucus explained that's simply wrong too. But even if they were, what possible reasoning could you use to claim they're equally reprehensible? That they're the same? By this reasoning, all forms of violence are equivalent to one another.
quote:Now you're reaching into morally gray terrain. I agree with you that it's a great thing to push for progress and equality, but when you vote for someone without knowing their politics, and instead you vote because they have the same skin color that you do, well, that's pretty awful. Heck, it's downright despicable.
Tough talk for a white American dude, if memory serves. Because it is of course just a coincidence that blacks have been between 9-14% of America's population for centuries, and it was never even politically thinkable until the past decade for a black man to be elected-much less a black woman, yes?
If you would drop this absurd equivalence you insist on, we might have the basis for a discussion. But whites in this country have been voting on the basis of skin color for centuries, and have actually been succeeding in advancing the cause of 'our race'. To suggest that a minority member voting for the very first chance they ever have to go against that pattern in our country is the same, is equally awful, remains distasteful to say the least. It remains the attitude of someone who has lived in the privileged section of American politics and hasn't really stopped to consider how the other half (well, excuse me, roughly third, just to belabor that half nonsense from before) lives beyond claiming 'racism is bad' and then considering the case closed.
Senoj's points are very much worth your consideration, Jeff. Consider this as well: the advent of a serious black American presidential candidate was met by...a roughly 10% over historic Democratic voting rates among that group. 10%, from 88 to 95%. That's large, that's an impressive gain of course, and certainly is substantially due to racial themes...but then you've got to consider, also as he points out, that the white vote increased by about 5% too.
So your theme of racially lockstep Democratic voting, your idea that Obama has the election sewn up because of his skin color, is simply nonsense. It's wrong because your perception of how many minorities there actually are in this country was hugely wrong, and it's wrong when you look at the facts of voting patterns.
Morally speaking it's less simple to demonstrate how bad these ideas of yours are, because things get murkier of course. But your theme there too, that a racist is a racist is a racist is a racist, and it doesn't matter if one racist only dates within their race and if the other just has an aversion for Tyler Perry movies and the third wears a hood and burns crosses, is also bunk. There are degrees. It's a complicated question.
----------------- Dan,
quote:The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
This is precisely what I'm talking about. This equivalence being drawn here. Us white dudes comfortable in the 21st century, growing up being taught that the race problem is in the past, that MLK pretty much took care of business, are quick to suggest that the guy who won't vote for a racial slur is just as inexcusable as the person who notes a factual, centuries-old trend and tries with their vote to work against it. For one thing, as Mucus explained it's not exactly racism-we're far, far, far, far, FAR from the point where voting for a minority on the basis of their skin color would disadvantage even in the slightest the majority in this country. Or do you think minorities are thrilled with how well Obama has handled issues near and dear to their political hearts?
As for excusable, my response to you is basically the same as it is to Jeff: we have been, historically, really effective at screening out minority politicians from the political process. We still are, in fact. So sure, absolutely, I can excuse someone from trying to hurry tearing down that system a little.
As for the MLK quote, well I can see why you'd consider a discussion of what he actually professed and believed on the matter of race in this country to be irrelevant. Sure, the perception (among whites) is often that what he meant was that we need to eradicate conscious, thinking racism from our hearts and minds and perceptions, and then things will be hunky dory.
That's not what he meant, though.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] Jeff, I note that you still haven't addressed your major factual inaccuracy earlier in this discussion re: just how large the minority population in this country is.
Actually, Rakeesh, I admitted that my information was wrong, if you look back a bit. I even explained how the idea came to be in my head, and that I must have confused it with what is going to happen in a few decades. Look back a page or two, Rakeesh. There's a reason I haven't brought it up again.
quote:For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that they're both completely racism. They're not, but let's just move past that.
If you are going to say the first sentence, don't say the second. One negates the other.
quote:They're completely the same? Someone who votes on the basis of attempting to see their own minority race, still seriously disadvantaged economically, politically, in terms of education, in representation, so on and so forth, is completely the same as the person who says he won't vote for someone because they're a racial slur?
I'll address your initial question, which is, "They're completely the same?"
If I go out and steal from a man, and then I go out and steal from another, does the crime not mean the same thing? What if I steal from a rich man, and then I steal from a poor man? Is it suddenly different? Should the judgement of that crime be different now, just because we feel more empathy for the poor man?
Well sure, you might rationalize, the rich man has so much more, so the crime isn't as bad. The poor man needs that thing you stole more than the rich man does, because he's poor.
I would say no, as would the law, because stealing is stealing and it is still wrong. My argument to you is not one of rationalization or even that the motivation behind the crime is the same. Surely, the intentions of the black woman are somewhat better than the hateful white man, but aren't they both racially motivated and hurtful to the process of election? If you vote for one person because of their race, but not the other, aren't you cheating the country by not understanding the facts? The simple fact is that they are, each of them, contributing to a problem, no matter their intentions, because the process of having a fair and proper election has become broken. The black woman refuses to care about the facts and has made up her mind to vote for the man who looks like she does, just like the white man has decided to vote for the man who looks like him. Both parties are sharing the crime, no matter how you try to rationalize their motivation.
quote:One person is, by their vote, explicitly attempting to keep a race down just because that race is inferior. The other person is explicitly trying to lift their own race up, because of the perception (factually accurate) that their race is not getting a fair shake in our society just yet.
Yet, is not the white man also voting, in turn, for the white politician because he believes that he will look out for his interests? Both sides are voting for someone who looks like they do. There might be other factors, such as a deplorable hatred for the Other, but that does not negate the fact that each side is still racially motivated in their decision making.
quote:But even if they were, what possible reasoning could you use to claim they're equally reprehensible?
They both hinder the election process, furthering ignorance and promoting racial preference.
quote:That they're the same? By this reasoning, all forms of violence are equivalent to one another.
Actually, that analogy doesn't really work in this scenario. In this scenario, both outcomes are the exact same, despite each person's motivations. Killing a man and punching a man reap completely different results; on the other hand, voting for somebody when you don't know anything about their politics or policies, but because they look a certain way, ultimately contributes to the same end, which is that it cheats a nation out of the best possible leader. That's the crime here.
quote:Tough talk for a white American dude, if memory serves.
Don't use my race against me. It only comes off as petty.
quote: If you would drop this absurd equivalence you insist on, we might have the basis for a discussion. But whites in this country have been voting on the basis of skin color for centuries, and have actually been succeeding in advancing the cause of 'our race'. To suggest that a minority member voting for the very first chance they ever have to go against that pattern in our country is the same, is equally awful, remains distasteful to say the least. It remains the attitude of someone who has lived in the privileged section of American politics and hasn't really stopped to consider how the other half (well, excuse me, roughly third, just to belabor that half nonsense from before) lives beyond claiming 'racism is bad' and then considering the case closed.
Let me be very clear here. I am not promoting either candidate in any way, nor am I saying it is reprehensible for a person of a certain race to vote for someone of their own race. My issue is that they are doing it for the sole reason that the person shares their skin color.
You bring up the fact that whites have been voting for whites on this exact same basis for centuries, but never once did I say that this was OK. In fact, I quite deplore it and find it detestable. I, myself, do not vote based upon a person's skin color, so I in turn expect my fellow Americans to do the same.
quote:So your theme of racially lockstep Democratic voting, your idea that Obama has the election sewn up because of his skin color, is simply nonsense.
Actually, Rakeesh, I stated that it was a factor. A major factor, yes, but only one factor. I listed several of them. I did this so that I could point out that he was a member of certain social groups: democrats and minorities. He also appeals to the poor for many reasons, but also because he doesn't come from a wealthy family. The more people who can relate to a candidate, the stronger their chance of winning.
When asked why they voted for George W. Bush back in 2000, many votes explained that he simply "looked like the kind of guy you could have a beer with". They didn't mention his politics. They didn't talk about his stance on China, since that was a growing concern at the time. No, they talked about how he seemed like someone they could sit down and relate to.
quote: Morally speaking it's less simple to demonstrate how bad these ideas of yours are, because things get murkier of course. But your theme there too, that a racist is a racist is a racist is a racist, and it doesn't matter if one racist only dates within their race and if the other just has an aversion for Tyler Perry movies and the third wears a hood and burns crosses, is also bunk. There are degrees. It's a complicated question.
Sure, Rakeesh, but it doesn't change the underlining message. By voting for a candidate simply because of their race, you are still allowing the idea of racism to exist. You aren't getting rid of it; you're furthering it. Racism doesn't just exist when it's convenient for you; it exists because it exists, and it's that simple.
Both individuals presented in this discussion have shown that they couldn't care less about the issues of this election, that they would rather live in complete ignorance and still go out and cast their votes for a person that appeals to them on the lowest possible qualification---their physical appearance.
That's wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
As for excusable, my response to you is basically the same as it is to Jeff: we have been, historically, really effective at screening out minority politicians from the political process. We still are, in fact. So sure, absolutely, I can excuse someone from trying to hurry tearing down that system a little.
Did I correctly bold your answer to my question? If not, could you repeat your answer to my question? Preferably without all the extraneous hostility, condescension, and implications that my arguments are invalid because of my race. If you honestly believe that, you're welcome not to argue with me, but if you argue with me, try to focus on the content of what I say and not my skin color.
If I got it right, and you're saying it's not racist... okay. You refer to what Mucus said. So racism only means "thinks X race is superior/inferior."
So it wouldn't be racist for a white guy to say "man, this black guy is brilliant and qualified, but I'm afraid he'll screw over white people like me, so I won't vote for him." Or "This black guy is brilliant and qualified for the job, but I feel bad for this stupid trailer trash white guy who applied, so I'll hire him. The black guy is smart enough to get a job anywhere"
Right? Not racist at all, yeah?
----------------
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I disagree. MLK is obviously an important figure in your societies racial history so I think his experience in having a dream and implementing that dream is highly instructive.
Sure, but it's irrelevant as a rebuttal to my point.
If someone says: "I believe in what Thomas Jefferson said: Socialism is the most humane political system in the world. For X reasons."
It's not actually an argument to say "Nope, Jefferson never said that!"
You're ignoring the actual content. If it makes you feel better, pretend I didn't mention MLK. You're welcome to mention him when you like, but if you're disputing what I said, then dispute the content.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Popularity is completely relevant when we're discussing usage of words, actually. As relevant as the OED or Britannica or whatever it was you linked earlier.
But if you mean, popularity isn't relevant to issues of racism, because most people are too blinded by their privilege and unconsciously maintain the pervasive, subtle oppression of black people... much like the "patriarchy" that keeps women down... I really don't have much else to say.
I mean, other than "it's crap." There are no good arguments for that stuff.
As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy that can be used to discredit someone's opinion, deflect criticism, and otherwise shut down rational conversation. If you really buy into it, then I don't think there's anything I could possibly say to change your mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, am I understanding this correctly (I don't know honestly)
Do you think "white privilege" is not like, a real thing, it's just a fallacy? Like there's no actual advantage conferred by various means, in sum, to being white in this country?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
As a purple female, I find this offensive.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm going to jump into the racism discussion against my better judgement, mostly because I'm bored and on my long bus commute home. I'll be talking in the abstract, mostly.
Although the discussion has long since moved past whether the number of non-white citizens have made whites a plurality, I think it would be a good idea not just to look at the demographic breakdown of the number of citizens according to their race. I want to know the relative turn out rates, numbers of registered voters, and numbers of those voters disenfranchised by felony convictions of each racial category compared to their percent of the larger population.
Even if its true that 34% of citizens in the United States are non-white(I'm willing to believe that number), what is the percent of non-white voter turnout in the election? If there is a significant difference between the two--which I'd wager there is--it demands investigation. This not just related to race, I'd also want to see voter participation rates broken down by sex, income bracket, region, religion, etc.
But to the question of voting for or against someone based upon their race, I suppose I should preface my opinion by saying that I support affirmative action. I'm also willing to admit to the fact that Obama's being black is a part of the reason I'll be voting for him. When we look at the racial demographic breakdowns in this country, we see there is still a lot of inequality between races according to primary social goods. I include in my list of primary social goods things like cultural capital, social capital, as well as liquid capital and assets. I take the evidence of gross inequality between races as evidence that there are systematic problems and not just social issues generating the inequality.
As a middle class white guy, I've never had to experience the effects of racism in the same way that a black man does. Even if I know the problem exists, I believe there is value to the knowledge gained by experience. Personal experience allows you to compare the struggles you face against others you've endured. I'm not so arrogant as to think that just because I know there's gross inequalities that I also know what it's like to face them.
It's like the idea of homosexuals in favor of homosexual rights being painted as a single issue voter. Gay people don't only face discrimination for being gay, they also struggle with rising gas prices, pollution, and generalized national security. As a straight man, I have no idea what its like to experience that discrimination and contrast that with the difficulties of other aspects in my life. But I trust the judgement of a gay person on issues relating to homosexual discrimination far more than a person who hasn't experienced it.
President Obama, as a black man, has faced many obstacles in his life by virtue of being black. He's also an extremely well educated man, demonstrates a judgment I like in my leaders, and his political alignment, while slightly right of mine, is far more in line with my own than Romney's.
One could object to my saying that Obama being black is part of the reason I'm supporting him by saying its not his race that I'm voting on, but the experiences he has had by virtue of being black. To that I respond I wouldn't think he's had those experiences if it weren't for the fact that I've read his books and that he's black.
So do I think I'm a racist for letting Obama's race influence my vote? No. I think I'm a racist because I have been socially conditioned into having prejudiced opinions of people without any evidence but the race of the individual. I'm also self-aware of my racism and work to accommodate for it without over compensation.
(Edited for clarity and cohesion. Cut me a break, I'm on my phone.)
[ October 05, 2012, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wait, am I understanding this correctly (I don't know honestly)
Do you think "white privilege" is not like, a real thing, it's just a fallacy? Like there's no actual advantage conferred by various means, in sum, to being white in this country?
No, if that's what you mean, then I agree it exists.
That's not the way I've typically seen it used. The place I typically see the term (and "male privilege") used is the Social Justice community, and both terms mean a lot more than just "there are some social advantages to being white/male."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Popularity is completely relevant when we're discussing usage of words, actually. As relevant as the OED or Britannica or whatever it was you linked earlier.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but if you are, that's probably the root of the miscommunication.
I have almost zero interest in the usage of words. What I have interest in is racism and what approaches people make take to deal with it. (e.g. voting for representation)
For example, we can imagine that in a state that we'll call South Barolina, people have gone on a very successful campaign to call eating pudding "racism" and suddenly many people are "racists." But that doesn't mean that the concept (or the problem) of (actual) racism has disappeared or that I'm suddenly interested in talking about pudding, it just means we have a oddly useless new phrase for describing people that eat pudding.
Similarly, I'm not talking about racism-as-useless-definition, or racism-as-slur, I'm talking about actual racism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So you quoted the Britannica definition just because you agree with it, and wanted the trappings of authority?
Okay. I disagree with it. Let's not rely on what's "technically" racism-according-to-Britannica.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jeff,
quote:Actually, Rakeesh, I admitted that my information was wrong, if you look back a bit. I even explained how the idea came to be in my head, and that I must have confused it with what is going to happen in a few decades. Look back a page or two, Rakeesh. There's a reason I haven't brought it up again.
You did acknowledge you were wrong without, that I recall, acknowledging that it was a very large error but in any event: that you so wildly overestimated the minority population in this country (without getting into a lower proportion of minority turnout, of course) doesn't seem to have impacted your notion that Obama has the election at a walk, one of the fundamental reasons being the minority vote.
So it was about more than just the number.
quote:I would say no, as would the law, because stealing is stealing and it is still wrong. My argument to you is not one of rationalization or even that the motivation behind the crime is the same. Surely, the intentions of the black woman are somewhat better than the hateful white man, but aren't they both racially motivated and hurtful to the process of election? If you vote for one person because of their race, but not the other, aren't you cheating the country by not understanding the facts? The simple fact is that they are, each of them, contributing to a problem, no matter their intentions, because the process of having a fair and proper election has become broken. The black woman refuses to care about the facts and has made up her mind to vote for the man who looks like she does, just like the white man has decided to vote for the man who looks like him. Both parties are sharing the crime, no matter how you try to rationalize their motivation.
We're not talking about the law. But alright, your point is that stealing the 50th silver salad fork from Daddy Warbucks is the same as stealing Little Orphan Annie's second (of two) pairs of shoes, assuming she has two, because they're both stealing.
Alright. Morally speaking that's nonsense because one person is harmed much much more than the other, but I can see there's not going to be much gained by further discussion on that point.
As for facts...well. You started this discussion by suggesting Obama can take the election easily largely due to his appeal to 'the poor' and to minorities, because (and you don't come out and say this, but it's plain) most minority voters are voting on racist grounds. I guess because of talking to coworkers, or something. But your basis for this claim was hugely overestimating just how many such voters there are. So. Facts.
quote:Yet, is not the white man also voting, in turn, for the white politician because he believes that he will look out for his interests? Both sides are voting for someone who looks like they do. There might be other factors, such as a deplorable hatred for the Other, but that does not negate the fact that each side is still racially motivated in their decision making.
Except his interests aren't actually under attack. *If* they are threatened, it's a far flung future threat indeed.
quote:They both hinder the election process, furthering ignorance and promoting racial preference.
Goodness yes, they both hinder the process to the same extent. Your coworker, voting for the first black candidate for President who had a shot ever, is exactly as racially motivated as the guy who goes out of his way not to vote for racial slurs. Both will change their minds about as often, and as time passes and her minority achieves something approaching equal representation, she'll continue to vote color.
Yeah.
quote:Don't use my race against me. It only comes off as petty.
Likening your coworker to your virulently bigoted step dad, that was petty. This is just me pointing out, bluntly, how thoroughly you live in white privilege.
quote:Let me be very clear here. I am not promoting either candidate in any way, nor am I saying it is reprehensible for a person of a certain race to vote for someone of their own race. My issue is that they are doing it for the sole reason that the person shares their skin color.
Mm-hm. So when you say, as you have, that Obama has a major advantage in the election because of how many racist votes he'll get (this is what you've said), that's not a rejection of the candidate?
quote:You bring up the fact that whites have been voting for whites on this exact same basis for centuries, but never once did I say that this was OK. In fact, I quite deplore it and find it detestable. I, myself, do not vote based upon a person's skin color, so I in turn expect my fellow Americans to do the same.
Oh, of course not. Unfortunately I tend to think problems such as generations of culturally and legally enforced racism are a bit more complex and enduring than 'I don't vote on skin color, if everyone just did that it would be great'.
It would be interesting to know, in detail, just what questions you asked to determine your coworker knew *nothing* about Obama except his race.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Rakeesh, I have said this multiple times now. I was not only referring to race. I said that he was part of that group, the minority group, and that he also was a democrat, and also came from a poor upbringing. These three things combined will get him the minority vote, the democratic vote, and the poor vote. Maybe not all of them, but certainly most.
quote:Mm-hm. So when you say, as you have, that Obama has a major advantage in the election because of how many racist votes he'll get (this is what you've said), that's not a rejection of the candidate?
No, Rakeesh, it's not, because I voted for the man once before. If you want, I can sit here and tell you how Romney is a part of certain groups, and how he will undoubtedly have their vote because of it. That's how politics works, as I've said, because people generally vote on the person they relate to the most.
quote:Likening your coworker to your virulently bigoted step dad, that was petty. This is just me pointing out, bluntly, how thoroughly you live in white privilege.
I likened them because they both exude ignorance on the subject of politics. They are vastly different in many ways, but of this they share a commonality. And saying that I live in white privilege shows an exceedingly large amount of ignorance on your part. I have not brought up your personal upbringing, nor have I aimed to directly insult you on a personal level, yet you have done so twice thus far, shadowing each insult with sarcasm and disdain. If you disagree with me, so be it, but leave it at that and try, at least for now, to be civil in your discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
That you are self-aware enough to know that your shameful racism is shameful enough that someone will comment on it is not a point in your favor, Dan. Look, seriously, I know you're smart enough to know what the term "white privilege" actually means, and I know you're smart enough to know that it absolutely exists; I know you've seen the studies demonstrating this, and know you understand the sociological and psychological factors at play, here. So what you're really objecting to is the idea that it's okay to actively suppress the power of an overpowered group in favor of a group that has been actively oppressed in the past and is consequently underpowered. This is entirely consistent with your personal philosophy; I understand that. But don't pretend that the phenomenon that action is meant to address doesn't exist; just man up and admit that, yes, it exists and it's a shame but you honestly don't care enough to allow it to violate your personal principles.
(And, Jeff, stealing from the poor is indeed a far, far worse crime than stealing from the rich. The law is only a tool -- it is not a goal -- and is at best one of many factors that help determine the morality of an action. There are many legal things which are immoral, and many illegal things that are moral.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
That you are self-aware enough to know that your shameful racism is shameful enough that someone will comment on it is not a point in your favor, Dan. Look, seriously, I know you're smart enough to know what the term "white privilege" actually means, and I know you're smart enough to know that it absolutely exists; I know you've seen the studies demonstrating this, and know you understand the sociological and psychological factors at play, here. So what you're really objecting to is the idea that it's okay to actively suppress the power of an overpowered group in favor of a group that has been actively oppressed in the past and is consequently underpowered. This is entirely consistent with your personal philosophy; I understand that. But don't pretend that the phenomenon that action is meant to address doesn't exist; just man up and admit that, yes, it exists and it's a shame but you honestly don't care enough to allow it to violate your personal principles.
Well, sure, you're right that I object to hurting people for the sake of other people. That's true! Even if the people that are being hurt are better off that the people being helped, I still think that's deeply immoral. No "manning up" required, not ashamed of it in the least.
That being said, the context in which I normally see the "X Privilege" terms being used are as I said earlier. Not as a descriptive term to indicate that whites or males have advantages, but as a term to indicate that because of these advantages the privileged group is invalidated. They can't understand/can't comment/can't criticize/etc. Whatever the need of the moment is. It's used as a very versatile ad hominem, essentially.
What amazed me is how immediately and blatantly you demonstrated the mindset I'm talking about. Do you honestly not see that? I'm pretty surprised.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What amazed me is how immediately and blatantly you demonstrated the mindset I'm talking about.
Heh. I imagine that you probably get a lot of that, since "I don't get why people say that I, as a white guy, don't really get to give my perspective on what being a minority is like" is pretty much an invitation to have that repeatedly explained to you, and it's the entirety of what you've been doing in this thread. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, no, not so much. I mean, no, I don't get it all that often (It's a pretty cheesy and intellectually lazy way to argue, which is why I am legitimately, honestly surprised to see you so gleefully use it). And also, no, I'm not saying anything about my perspective on "what being a minority is like."
I have been giving my perspective on racism, of course. But it's pretty weird to characterize any white person's opinion of racism as trying to claim "what being a minority is like."
Of course, you and Rakeesh and other whities feel totally comfortable giving your opinions on racism. So it's not really inappropriate for a white man to talk about racism. Only if he's criticizing some prevailing attitudes about racism is it not okay.
Which, again, is why claims like this are really just a tool used to deflect criticism and avoid rational discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're missing the point. The point is not that you can't give or have a perspective on racism or racial matters. The point is that you should show, should have, some deep abiding skepticism as to how accurate, how valid, how reflective of the actual world that opinion is because...white privilege.
I would have to do a lot of research and even immersion before I would be taken seriously if I decided to speak about the living circumstances of, say, low income Catholic families in southern England who had come from generations of the same. It would be laughable and, to them, offensive particularly if I were to conclude from my far flung, ill informed perspective that things weren't that bad for them. That they didn't face any sort of serious cultural or governmental intolerance.
But just because we're all Americans, supposedly-this being another sign of that privilege, the automatic assumption that our opinion is valid and our experience relevant-us white American men have some right to have our opinion on experiences we know very little, as a group, about be respected as valid...I'm not sure, just because everyone has opinions or something.
You get to have an opinion. What you don't get is to have an opinion that conveniently fits your own perspective and serves your own interest and get to have it without being regarded with skepticism. Especially when you say (and believe, before being corrected) things like minorities are half the country. That remark, for example, is a sign of being radically out of touch with just what the race situation is. Or to say 'white privilege is usually used as a fallacy', or to quote MLK and then pivot away from actually examining his thoughts on a topic.
It's interesting how circular your argument is. You say that 'white privilege' is used as a rhetorical bludgeon against white people on racial matters. We describe white privilege and the way in which it means your perspective should be taken with a grain of salt, a substantial one, because of the way it directly supports the status quo. You exult that this serves to prove your point, without ever actually explaining why your thoughts on the nature and pervasiveness of racism should be considered as valid as opinions that don't, as you and Jeff have alluded to, hint that the problem is solved when people 'don't vote on skin color' or that all it takes is a conscious decision not to be racist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also: you cannot possibly express an opinion about racism without also making a statement, whether you mean to or not, about the minority experience. It's not an abstract, it's not a math problem, and to express what racism is or looks like means at the very least making a statement that challenges or affirms to some extent 'the minority experience'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The absolute best best best part about my white privilege is that it's everywhere, but I don't have to bother ever analyzing it or even recognizing that it's there in many ways. It's just there, inexorably, at almost every level of society. I literally don't even have to know it's there!
And that in converse is the worst part of it for persons of color slash minority races. They end up having to confront it, because it's there and it works against them, and it's frequently just right-out thrown in their faces. By a majority race comprised of individuals usually certain they are not contributing to it. Whee!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're missing the point. The point is not that you can't give or have a perspective on racism or racial matters. The point is that you should show, should have, some deep abiding skepticism as to how accurate, how valid, how reflective of the actual world that opinion is because...white privilege.
Can you explain why I should do that? I approach most things with skepticism and self-criticism, but I don't see why I should have some extra-special-deep-abiding skepticism of this in particular. Is there some reason you think it's more difficult/impossible to understand something intellectually rather than understanding it via personal experience?
Often times people don't look very critically at their personal experiences in the first place, and make lots of mistakes in accurately explaining their experiences. Do you disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But just because we're all Americans, supposedly-this being another sign of that privilege, the automatic assumption that our opinion is valid and our experience relevant-us white American men have some right to have our opinion on experiences we know very little, as a group, about be respected as valid...I'm not sure, just because everyone has opinions or something.
There it is again... how relevant our "experience" is. Shrug.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You get to have an opinion. What you don't get is to have an opinion that conveniently fits your own perspective and serves your own interest and get to have it without being regarded with skepticism. Especially when you say (and believe, before being corrected) things like minorities are half the country. That remark, for example, is a sign of being radically out of touch with just what the race situation is. Or to say 'white privilege is usually used as a fallacy', or to quote MLK and then pivot away from actually examining his thoughts on a topic.
Heh, again, I used a bad paraphrase of an MLK quote in the context of an argument I was making. It actually didn't occur to me that people would assume I was trying to use MLK's authority as an argument, but I see now that it could be read that way. My mistake. I don't think such authority exists, and didn't intend to assume any of the authority you assign to MLK for myself.
Also, can you explain how what I said fits my own perspective and serves my own interest? I don't understand what you mean, so an explanation would be helpful.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's interesting how circular your argument is. You say that 'white privilege' is used as a rhetorical bludgeon against white people on racial matters. We describe white privilege and the way in which it means your perspective should be taken with a grain of salt, a substantial one, because of the way it directly supports the status quo. You exult that this serves to prove your point, without ever actually explaining why your thoughts on the nature and pervasiveness of racism should be considered as valid as opinions that don't, as you and Jeff have alluded to, hint that the problem is solved when people 'don't vote on skin color' or that all it takes is a conscious decision not to be racist.
Your responses seem equally circular to me.
One thing, though: I will never try to convince you that due to my experiences my opinion should be considered valid/as valid/more valid or whatever. This is because I don't think that people's opinions gain validity based on where they're coming from.
I think that arguments and explanations are valid based on whether or not I can think of any criticisms of them, and then whether or not my criticisms can be addressed by the person I am talking to. Repeat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Can you explain why I should do that? I approach most things with skepticism and self-criticism, but I don't see why I should have some extra-special-deep-abiding skepticism of this in particular. Is there some reason you think it's more difficult/impossible to understand something intellectually rather than understanding it via personal experience?
Well, this gets right back to white privilege which you disregard, so I don't know how much an explanation will be worth, but here goes: there's nothing special about it, to us. We're not receiving any unusual or unwarranted benefits, it seems, so to us white privilege isn't something that has to be considered-we 'know' that we abide by MLK's injunction to judge people by the content of their characters and not their skin, so to us it seems as though it's more or less a thing of the past. You should be more skeptical of it because it's there (studies on a variety of aspects of American life demonstrate this conclusively, however much anyone wishes to claim it's a fallacy), and by your (and my) nature it is harder to detect because for us it's a reality we haven't courted, we just live in it. It's a confirmation bias, so to speak, and I know you're familiar with those and why extra skepticism is needed to detect them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere. If anything, any confirmation bias I had was functioning in the opposite way that you describe, to reinforce my belief in how deeply racist society was.
I think that, to the extent cultural racism exists in our country (and it does!), I still see it. But I've taken a more skeptical and critical view of those conclusive studies, of social justice, of "white privilege," etc. as well.
Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts, and I think they are often not the best explanations. Because "social justice" is mostly just a tribal subculture designed to give people a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. And because, well, I already bitched about how I see "white privilege" used.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
There is a large subset of Social Justice Warriors which are among the most obnoxiously terrible things on the internet and its kind of frankly broken and toxic shit all wandering to the fore but the behavior of a weird subset of social justikeers does not in any way impact the truth of the matter that america is a deeply racist country with generations to go before there's any sort of real parity that prevents the ingrained socialization and inclusion of privilege to whites.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What it comes down to for me is, as I've said before, how strange and hugely unlikely the idea is that a society with cultural, legal, religious, political, and economic open racism for centuries can be thought to have overcome those problems in literally less than a tenth of the number of generations than those problems were, setting aside non-overt/on the books problems, in place.
If we were reading about a social problem of similar duration and power in a different society long in the past, few indeed would credit the majority's leaders in history books claiming the problem had been largely dealt with so quickly. Most people would (rightly) regard such a thing with skepticism.
I suppose it ties into American exceptionalism, though. We're just that good. Two or three generations since we addressed (much) of the on-the-books racism in our country, and the claim that it still persists in subtle cultural ways is just a fallacy...even though, y'know, just all racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups except 'white Christian male' are still hugely underrepresented in the upper tiers of the private sector and of government. White privilege is just a fallacy. We're just...I don't know, lucky or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But since you mentioned it, Dan, how *do* you explain those facts-underrepresentation-in my last paragraph? They are so consistent and so pervasive it cannot just be coincidence.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
We should pat ourselves on the backs for how good we have been about talking about how we have combated racism. What is really important is that people don't make me feel bad about the fact that racism exists, because I'm not the problem, I'm the GOOD white man who agrees that racism is a bad thing and shouldn't exist.
Repeat forever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Okay. I disagree with it. Let's not rely on what's "technically" racism-according-to-Britannica.
But more importantly, I don't know why one would prefer your interpretation of the MLK-definition. Not only does it not seem very useful in explaining how racial discrimination works, it has weird side-effects like defining MLK as a racist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere. If anything, any confirmation bias I had was functioning in the opposite way that you describe, to reinforce my belief in how deeply racist society was.
I think that, to the extent cultural racism exists in our country (and it does!), I still see it. But I've taken a more skeptical and critical view of those conclusive studies, of social justice, of "white privilege," etc. as well.
Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts, and I think they are often not the best explanations. Because "social justice" is mostly just a tribal subculture designed to give people a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. And because, well, I already bitched about how I see "white privilege" used.
Dan when your riding the subway, and you see black people, do you sit right next to them or do you try to take a seat further away? Or stand?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere.
They are indeed conclusive. So I'm curious: what anecdotal evidence caused you to stop believing in the conclusive work of generations of social scientists?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What it comes down to for me is, as I've said before, how strange and hugely unlikely the idea is that a society with cultural, legal, religious, political, and economic open racism for centuries can be thought to have overcome those problems in literally less than a tenth of the number of generations than those problems were, setting aside non-overt/on the books problems, in place.
If we were reading about a social problem of similar duration and power in a different society long in the past, few indeed would credit the majority's leaders in history books claiming the problem had been largely dealt with so quickly. Most people would (rightly) regard such a thing with skepticism.
I suppose it ties into American exceptionalism, though. We're just that good. Two or three generations since we addressed (much) of the on-the-books racism in our country, and the claim that it still persists in subtle cultural ways is just a fallacy...even though, y'know, just all racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups except 'white Christian male' are still hugely underrepresented in the upper tiers of the private sector and of government. White privilege is just a fallacy. We're just...I don't know, lucky or something.
Dude, seriously, roll back some of the sarcasm and hostility. It's totally unnecessary, you're not going to get a rise out of me, and it takes longer to find the points in your posts.
There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
But anyway, setting aside the abstract "it's super unlikely that we could have solved racism" argument, I actually agree with you insofar as racial inequity hasn't been fully resolved. Not by a long shot. It strikes me as weird that you keep ascribing attitudes to me that I never expressed, but whatever.
Where I disagree with you is in the idea that the primary reason for this inequity is due to pervasive, hidden racist attitudes in the overwhelming majority of the population. That's a possibility, of course, but it doesn't strike me as the best explanation.
Explanations that acknowledge the power of formative memes... two examples being education and racial/geographical subcultures (which alone encompass lots of disparate factors)... seem better.
Blayne: What's the point of that question?
If I say I don't avoid sitting next to black people, the infinitely variable "white privilege" meme has plenty of potential responses to invalidate what I say: Maybe I only think I don't avoid sitting next to black people due to confirmation bias. Or maybe I actively choose to sit next to them to prove to myself how not racist I am even though I continue being racist in a thousand other hidden ways.
Or whatever. I'm not as good at this as some people, maybe Sam or Mucus or Rakeesh can tell me what my subway sitting habits really mean.
If you really care, though: I tend go for a window seat with nobody next to it. If I have to sit next to somebody, I sit next to the skinniest person I can spot with a cursory look. I live in the Bay Area and for three years I took the BART subway train into San Francisco. Pretty sure that if I had a problem sitting next to black people the subway would've been torture, instead of a great chance to catch an extra half hour of sleep on my way to work.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere.
They are indeed conclusive. So I'm curious: what anecdotal evidence caused you to stop believing in the conclusive work of generations of social scientists?
None. I've just seen explanations for why a lot of social science is less science and more scientism. We've talked about this before, though, haven't we?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not this specific example. So, question: have you just decided to reject all social science, or do you know something specific about the studies of white privilege -- or, indeed, the concept of social privilege at all -- that would lead you to believe it is not indeed a widespread phenomenon?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
Errr...such as? What other problem on a social and government level did you have in mind?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, again, I've described how I've seen "white privilege" used... but then Sam and others have also used it to mean nothing more than "any social advantage conferred by being white," which is broad enough that I don't object to it the way I object to the version of "white privilege" that I described a page or two ago.
As far as it goes, what I reject about the social science on this issue is the idea that the best explanation for the disparities is a pervasive universal (universal for Americans anyway) unconscious prejudice against black people.
Human motivations are more complicated than that.
And there are other factors like education that get obfuscated here. Education, of course, is interesting, because it still reveals some serious racial inequities and some really bad racially biased cultural memes. Again, I'm not saying those don't exist, at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
Errr...such as? What other problem on a social and government level did you have in mind?
Well, I wasn't specifically thinking of social/government problems. But sure. Human sacrifice? Republican government? Progress can happen very quickly, when there is a catalyst for change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, human sacrifice. Which cultures were you thinking of that had it as a feature for centuries, and moved away from it inside a generation or two?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, using the Aztecs may be a bit of a cheat, since most of their culture was also eradicated in the process, but it certainly happened quick. Better examples might be the Tibetans, the Pawnee, many groups in Africa...
Often there were small holdover groups that resisted change, which isn't remotely contradictory to anything I've said. I freely admit there are holdover groups that are blatantly racist!
But by and large, when a major cultural shift occurred in these places (a shift towards a culture where human sacrifice was no longer acceptable), the practice died out quickly among the population.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dan, if what % of American disparity would you agree is caused by racism, institutional or otherwise? 1%? 5%? Would you agree that at least 10 to 15% is caused by it as a systemic issue within American society?
If we can agree that it is 15%, why is that not worth investing in social programs to alleviate at least that 15% we have a clear cut solution to, a clear cut problem?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
Starting to think that your idea of the "conclusions of the studies" is as hazy and really wholly incorrect in the sociological field as your idea of psychological studies is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Looking at the Pawnee, I'm reading about child sacrifice in the early 19th century. Is that what you're referring to? As for Tibet, I find talk of it largely ending in the 7th century due to the arrival of Buddhism-is that what you're referring to?
Now, if I'm right about the first example, that is I correctly noticed what you meant...it's a terrible, inapplicable example. The Pawnee culture was already at that time in the process of being all but wiped out, and they were being explicitly advised by Indian Agents that they needed to stop, with the obvious threat implicit. Which would leave us with Tibet, which I haven't dug into yet. But it would seem that what was necessary there was an enormous religious revolution, if it was as decisive as you claim.
We're left with a few huge problems with your 'we have generally overcome racism in a couple of generations' theory, though. Aside from the fact that human sacrifice is a much more obvious, clear cut practice and thus easier to stop (or start). One, unless you're going to claim that the advent of the Civil Rights Movement actually changed the hearts and minds of serious, committee racists (I do hope you won't), then they were still being elected to office and holding high end private sector jobs...but it was no longer legal to openly, explicitly practice racism. So of course they therefore decided it was time to just be non racist even when they could get away with it, or something.
Another of the (many) problems would be that if you actually ask the people *that would notice*, that is actual minorities, well then racism is certainly not just a few old holdouts. White privilege isn't a fallacy. For this opinion we can look at actual representation in politics, government, media, academia, etc, and find a substantial underrepresentation across the boards for all minorities.
So if racism and white privilege had actually been nixed to the extent you say, wouldn't we be able to *tell* in a way other than just polling white people?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would probably criticize some of the studies about unconsciuos racial bias in the same way as Dan. For example, I don't think the face reaction studies indicate what they're supposed to show about implicit bias. They probably do show that unconscious, reflexive aversive reactions to black people's faces are common, but it's a huge leap of logic from this to the claim that these reactions do much to affect important aspects of people's behavior toward black people. However uncool it is, avoiding sitting next to black men on the train doesn't by itself hurt anyone very much.
The place where I do think good evidence of implicit bias can be found is in these resume studies. Unfortunately, it's much harder to design the studies to measure racial bias, but they do show that the same resume gets a much fairer hearing with a man's name on top than with a woman's name on top. So that's very strong evidence for what we might label "male privilege" that likely has a serious negative effect on women's careers. Now, it would surprise me if typical people have such robust implicit biases against women and not against black people, since it's probably fair to say that black people are historically more stigmatized than women in the US.
As Dan pointed out in this a previous thread about this, the comparable studies that replace black-sounding names with white-sounding names have potential confounding factors. I think it's fair to say that the prevalence of morally significant implicit bias against women is empirically better established than it is against blacks, but that seems more likely to be because good evidence about the gender case is easier to gather, rather than because the racial bias doesn't exist in equal amounts (at least). It's just harder to measure directly.
[ October 07, 2012, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
Starting to think that your idea of the "conclusions of the studies" is as hazy and really wholly incorrect in the sociological field as your idea of psychological studies is.
There's no particular study I had in mind, Sam, so if you're waiting for me to give you an example you'll be waiting a long time. It's a pretty broad error, though, so if there's a study you're particularly fond of, that you think proves me wrong, feel free to share it. Either I'll be persuaded or I'll offer some criticism of the study, which you can then be persuaded by or criticize. Win/Win!
---------
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Looking at the Pawnee, I'm reading about child sacrifice in the early 19th century. Is that what you're referring to? As for Tibet, I find talk of it largely ending in the 7th century due to the arrival of Buddhism-is that what you're referring to?
Now, if I'm right about the first example, that is I correctly noticed what you meant...it's a terrible, inapplicable example. The Pawnee culture was already at that time in the process of being all but wiped out, and they were being explicitly advised by Indian Agents that they needed to stop, with the obvious threat implicit. Which would leave us with Tibet, which I haven't dug into yet. But it would seem that what was necessary there was an enormous religious revolution, if it was as decisive as you claim.
Yeah I guess Pawnee was as sticky as Aztec, in hindsight. Their societies were static enough that the major transformations were resisted to the point of their entire cultures getting wiped out.
West Africa and Tibet are less controversial, I guess. As you indicated, for Tibet it was Buddhism. For West Africa it was Islam. In both cases these major cultural shifts also included disavowal of human sacrifice.
The fact that these cultures required a major transformative event isn't a flaw in my argument. It's a feature. That was my (poorly explained?) point. I think the civil rights movement served as that transformative event.
Our society is less static than the ancient Aztecs or the ancient Tibetans, so our transformation required more good ideas and less slaughter or religious trappings. That's a good thing! It's a mark in our favor.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We're left with a few huge problems with your 'we have generally overcome racism in a couple of generations' theory, though. Aside from the fact that human sacrifice is a much more obvious, clear cut practice and thus easier to stop (or start). One, unless you're going to claim that the advent of the Civil Rights Movement actually changed the hearts and minds of serious, committee racists (I do hope you won't), then they were still being elected to office and holding high end private sector jobs...but it was no longer legal to openly, explicitly practice racism. So of course they therefore decided it was time to just be non racist even when they could get away with it, or something.
There's that sarcasm again.
Certainly, the civil rights movement was a major transformative event. It changed the minds of some hardcore racists, of course (Isn't Robert Byrd a favorite example?) But not all of them. Many more just saw the way the wind was blowing and began changing their outward behavior when necessary.
It's grown more and more necessary over time. After all, the older generations are dying. And our society is dynamic enough, and sufficiently good at thinking, that particularly terrible ideas are able to fall away and be replaced by less-bad ideas.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Another of the (many) problems would be that if you actually ask the people *that would notice*, that is actual minorities, well then racism is certainly not just a few old holdouts. White privilege isn't a fallacy. For this opinion we can look at actual representation in politics, government, media, academia, etc, and find a substantial underrepresentation across the boards for all minorities.
So if racism and white privilege had actually been nixed to the extent you say, wouldn't we be able to *tell* in a way other than just polling white people?
Well then it's a good thing I don't suggest we poll white people! Whew! Dodged that bullet.
Polling black people isn't really any better, of course, since they're just as likely to inaccurately remember or understand as anyone else. Self-reporting isn't really reliable at the best of times.
Yeah, there are underrepresentations, though. For sure! I've never denied that... I don't think. Have I? If I did, I recant my previous foolish statement.
-------------------
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The place where I do think good evidence of implicit bias can be found is in these resume studies. Unfortunately, it's much harder to design the studies to measure racial bias, but they do show that the same resume gets a much fairer hearing with a man's name on top than with a woman's name on top. So that's very strong evidence for what we might label "male privilege" that likely has a serious negative effect on women's careers. Now, it would surprise me if typical people have such robust implicit biases against women and not against black people, since it's probably fair to say that black people are historically more stigmatized than women in the US.
Yeah, that's interesting! It's a tiny study, but I'm glad you shared it. Not totally surprising, sadly. Girls can't do math and science, after all. I know the tech industry also has some common sexist memes running through it, in much the same way.
Of course, the dearth of women scientists is way bigger than the margins of that study. The girls can't do math/science meme is, I think more complicated than just "so we don't hire them as much." That's not the whole story. Still, it's undoubtedly lousy!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A better example might be Chinese footbinding of women; but these are practices and not values.
Example, Japan: Equal rights for Women such as the right to vote were imposed on Japan by MacArthur and his version of the constitution based on the American constitution that he wrote for Japan; interesting to note it gave the right to vote to Japanese citizens in ways that were not yet available to American citizens.
However 50 years later and Japan, while a modern representative democracy that shares many of our values is still very much a "rape culture" and many social values regarding social equality between men and women are lagging 50 years behind America.
So merely "on the books" racism or inequality, being removed through legislative means doesn't however we can clearly see solve the institutional inequalities that still lag. America is no more exception than Japan, it is in of itself racist to presume America solved these issues when Japan didn't when there is so much evidence that it has not been done.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, in other news...
The post-debate polling has shown a significant bounce for Romney. The national polling average from the week before the debate (appr. 20 polls) was Obama +3.85. The polling average in the week since the debate (appr. 11 polls) is Romney +0.82, or roughly a 4.5 point swing. Nate Silver sees some receding of the bounce in the new Rasmussen and Gallup polls, but at the moment the race seems to have reverted to approximately a tie, at least with respect to the national average. Swing state polls have shown similar movement toward Romney, but there haven't been enough to say anything very interesting. Silver's model has moved from giving Romney a 13% chance of winning the election to giving him a 25% chance. InTrade has gone from giving Romney a 20% chance to giving him a 40% chance.
In non-polling news, the President's campaign released a quirky ad making fun of Romney's line about liking Big Bird but not enough to borrow money from China to fund the CPB. The script from the ad:
quote:Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed. And the evil genius who towered over them? One man has the guts to speak his name. Big Bird.
Later, it echos a line Obama has added to his stump speech, "Mitt Romney knows it's not Wall Street you have to worry about, it's Sesame Street." The Sesame Workshop has asked the Obama campaign to remove the ad, since the Workshop is non-partisan and doesn't endorse candidates, but the campaign has not yet chosen to do so. So, for now at least, you can see the ad here.
(h/t Dave Weigel)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A tie?
Oh. Yeah, in respect to the national average.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A tie?
Oh. Yeah, in respect to the national average.
Well, I guess more accurate would be to say Romney currently holds a narrow lead in the national average, rather than calling it a tie.
Seriously though, swing states are where the election is won or lost, and while they are susceptible to national swings, they obviously don't perfectly correlate. That said, post-debate polls have been released showing Romney ahead or tied in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada, as well as trailing by low single-digits in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (with the obvious caveat that single polls are hardly definitive, and in some cases, like Virginia, competing polls have shown Obama with a narrow lead).
<edit>A new poll from IBD/TIPP just came in with a Romney +2.0, making the post-debate average among all pollsters Romney +1.0.</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
alienated ?????? impossible
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Hate to say "I told you so" to my fellow Obama supporters in this thread (no seriously, I'd much rather be eating these words), but... I told you so. Stop assuming we've got this in the bag. This election is going to be close.
Obama's holding a tenuous lead in the Electoral College math right now, but the national polls are as tied as you can really be. If the current momentum in the daily trackers continues over the next few days, you could even argue that Romney has a slim lead.
I suspect the next two debates (VP and town hall) may be pretty decisive in this election. Obama and Biden have a chance to stop the bleeding and even swing the momentum back their way. On the other hand, Romney and Ryan have an equal shot at really dealing the hammer blow and pushing strongly ahead for the first time. Given that the debates are really the last "major" scheduled news before Election Day (short of a hugely surprisingly November jobs report in either direction), it would be tough for either candidate to significantly reverse the trendline once we're through them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: Here is one of those odd regularities that crop up in American politics: Every election year since at least 1996, about a quarter of gay voters (more precisely, of voters who acknowledge being gay in exit polls) have pulled for the Republican presidential candidate, rain or shine.
I just... it always strikes me as odd when people act like this is odd.
The arrogance of guys like that surprises me too. As if it's completely absurd that maybe some gay people wouldn't be single-issue voters, and vote for someone who isn't good on gay rights because they feel strongly about X, Y, and Z other issues.
Some gay people think that there are more important concerns in choosing the president than marriage laws. Crazy, right?
In fact, I'd be willing to bet a lot of gay people feel that way... it's just that the non-Republican gay people don't need to clarify what issues they care most about, because they also happen to be voting for someone seen as (slightly) more gay-friendly.
Just to be sure we don't go down a tangent of whether these political opinions are good or not, I'll put it in epithets you can understand: Imagine a person who is hugely islamophobic, has an irrational hatred of Keynesian economics, is a zombie cultist of Ayn Rand, hates poor people, hates good health care, and is an evil billionaire corporate fat cat. They also happen to be gay.
Now imagine: Who do you think such a person might vote for?
It really rubs me the wrong way when people paint this situation as some sort of totally bizarre phenomenon.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed. Especially when you only have two parties, this kind of "error" is going to be common.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
538 last I checked was 75% chance for Obama to win, that's not really tied at all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 538 last I checked was 75% chance for Obama to win, that's not really tied at all.
I mentioned that in my first post, if you read closely.
Silver's model is skeptical of abrupt, bounce-like polling changes (which is appropriate; bounces, by nature, tend to fade) and so doesn't really believe Romney is permanently ahead. It also models the complex interaction between state-level and national-level polling, and there is insufficient state-level polling to really move that aspect of the model much. Between these two factors, it's not surprising that Silver's model has only doubled Romney's chances of winning since the debate, rather than moving him into parity with Obama.
<edit>I just clicked over to 538, and Romney's probability of winning moved from 25% to 29% after today's polls were incorporated into the model. That's the highest it's been since Aug. 29 which was the middle of the GOP convention.<edit>
[ October 09, 2012, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And it could easily swing right back the other way depending on how the next debates go. Not many people watch the VP debate, but there's still the town hall and foreign policy.
The interesting thing is that early voting has already started in a lot of places. Now is the most important time Romney could have possibly made a comeback.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right so why does Romney chances should be on par with Obama's then?
It's not unreasonable to think it odd, since GOP (and Democrat, to be fair) historic and current...apathy or antagonism towards homosexuality, not just gay rights, has been considerably more pronounced than 'marriage law'.
It's not just marriage law. Republicans overall have a tendancy to be more repressive towards homosexuals than Democrats do, in some cases by a wide margin. Thus, a bit surprising, but the explanations are there-and are often 'this is the best long-term way', btw.
What's more interesting to me is how common it is to see irritability or outrage over the idea that homosexuals might trend more Democratic. As though to deny the higher repressiveness and disdain the GOP offers them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not unreasonable to think it odd, since GOP (and Democrat, to be fair) historic and current...apathy or antagonism towards homosexuality, not just gay rights, has been considerably more pronounced than 'marriage law'.
It's not just marriage law. Republicans overall have a tendancy to be more repressive towards homosexuals than Democrats do, in some cases by a wide margin. Thus, a bit surprising, but the explanations are there-and are often 'this is the best long-term way', btw.
What's more interesting to me is how common it is to see irritability or outrage over the idea that homosexuals might trend more Democratic. As though to deny the higher repressiveness and disdain the GOP offers them.
In case it wasn't clear, I'm not irritated by the idea that homosexuals trend democrat. That's just a fact, and it'd be silly to get upset over it. There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
I just object when people act like the fact that a significant minority of gay people trend republican is some sort of wildly unexpected and inexplicable oddity.
It's not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Dan's hypothetical about Peter Thiel is a good one. Where would a Randian homosexual go? There are elements within the Democratic party whose antipathy toward greedy businessmen manifests itself as loathing and demonization; in fact, I'd say it's been the party line for the last two years. So when both parties loath and demonize you, but you want to vote (and not for a third-party), what should you do?
The truth that Dan was trying to get to, and one that I see repeatedly missed by partisans on both sides but particularly on the Democratic side, is that people are complex. We contain multitudes. Poor Kansas Evangelical Republicans vote against their economic interest to vote for their social interest, as do wealthy Connecticut hedge fund managers. Peter Thiel votes against some of his social interests, as do most middle-class, religious blacks and Hispanics. Foreign policy interests led new-atheists like Chris Hitchins and neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz to support Bush, despite their loathing of Bush's religious ideals, and anti-war fervor brought together Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
The idea that any single slice of our demography ought to be dispositive in determining our voting habits strikes me as significantly simplistic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The thing that I find odd is the way people (like Kansan Evangelicals) can convince themselves that they aren't actually voting against any of their interests. They should just own up to it. As I do when I vote Democrat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
I'm not getting the distinction. Also, I'm sticking to Utah Mormons.
Regardless of how strongly Utah Mormons demonize group X. The evangelical wing of the Republican party for years has demonized group X and Mormons.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The thing that I find odd is the way people (like Kansan Evangelicals) can convince themselves that they aren't actually voting against any of their interests. They should just own up to it. As I do when I vote Democrat.
True. More disheartening, to me, is the way in which voters' individual ideologies seem to be increasingly dictated by party lines rather than personal preferences. Parties aren't meant to be, nor can they realistically be, ideologically coherent. To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald). However, there's evidence that increasingly people are taking their ideological positions not from either their innate preferences, or even exogenously from some narrow special interest group or faith community, but from the national parties themselves. To me, a system in which ideology is generated not by philosophy or morality but by party dynamics seems disturbingly ungrounded, and susceptible to all sorts of perverse effects.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
I'm not getting the distinction. Also, I'm sticking to Utah Mormons.
Regardless of how strongly Utah Mormons demonize group X. The evangelical wing of the Republican party for years has demonized group X and Mormons.
My point was this alliance wasn't due to income tax, but shared loathing of other groups.
I think there's a big difference between something like the income tax thing and allying with people who are bigoted against you because you share their other bigotries.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't see how there's a massive pull when it comes to demonizing a group of people, as opposed to a policy that by extension is espoused by a group of people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald).
While I agree with your broader point, Greenwald is a bit of an outlier on that list. These days, he seems to despise the Democrats--precisely because they've compromised on issues that he feels he cannot compromise on, morally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Obviously I am very proud of being able to use quotes on my phone. But it's in quotes because it is "framing that completely misses the reality of an issue," especially given where both sides have consistently been over the decades-long struggle to overturn anti-sodomy laws state by state — you might as well tell women needing an abortion that republicans only have a "slightly worse record" in terms of abortion rights. It makes two extremely-not-the-same-at-all effective positions seem about the same, at a point where they differ greatly and are only widening.
To go back to your first response to me: I agree with much of it. I am not going to find it odd that people aren't single issue anything much of the time. This is about the log cabin republicans as an organization rolling with the persistently homophobic dysfunction of their party until they can pretty much take no more in terms of signing on with Romney.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Obviously I am very proud of being able to use quotes on my phone.
Well, I can't fault you for that. I finally bit the bullet and got one of these newfangled phones myself, and I have to admit, it's pretty handy.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But it's in quotes because it is "framing that completely misses the reality of an issue," especially given where both sides have consistently been over the decades-long struggle to overturn anti-sodomy laws state by state — you might as well tell women needing an abortion that republicans only have a "slightly worse record" in terms of abortion rights. It makes two extremely-not-the-same-at-all effective positions seem about the same, at a point where they differ greatly and are only widening.
I think the Democratic party has been much more consistently pro-abortion than pro-gay rights.
That being said, when we look at the level of state legislature (sodomy laws, gay marriage bans, etc.) I see your point. The difference is more significant in that sphere. More due to bad behavior by Republicans than to good behavior by Democrats, but even so, your correction is noted. "Slightly better" was a bad way to phrase it.
When I said it, I was thinking in the context of electing the president. And when it comes to presidential acts, the gay rights progress made by Democratic presidents has been extremely slight, and the damage done by Republican presidents has been similarly slim.
Unless I'm forgetting some major issue or something, which is possible.
PS: I'm glad you recognized the main point I was trying to make, though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald).
While I agree with your broader point, Greenwald is a bit of an outlier on that list. These days, he seems to despise the Democrats--precisely because they've compromised on issues that he feels he cannot compromise on, morally.
I'll admit that I haven't followed Greenwald closely in a couple of years. I was just casting about for a prominent example of a Democratic voice with libertarian sympathies and he was the first who came to mind. That said, I'm having a hard time coming up with a good surrogate. Does Reddit have a favorite Democrat? Someone who has been in active opposition of SOPA and PIPA, is in favor of drug legalization, and calls out the President for his drone-based foreign policy? There's gotta be someone like that. Markos Moulitsas, maybe?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Back to the actual election, 538 puts Romney's chances of winning the popular vote at 33% today, higher than it has been at any time since Silver first introduced his 2012 model. Romney's advantage in the post-debate national polls of likely voters remains unchanged at 1.0 after several polls released today showed him with a slight lead. He has been tied or leading in every national poll of likely voters released since the debate.
Suffolk University's David Paleologos, a well-known pollster, reports that his outfit is pulling out of Florida, N. Carolina and Virginia, saying "we've already painted those states red." Much as I wish a Romney win in those states were a foregone conclusion, Paleologos' rationale is essentially that undecideds break toward the challenger, a bit of campaign folklore that appears to beunsupported by the data.
Posted by shakes (Member # 12903) on :
Wow, stumbled across this conversation. Have any of you guys talking about "white privilege" actually worked in the real world?
I'm sorry, but the most racist thing that exists in the country today is affirmative action. How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota.....there are certainly some that are qualified, but there are many who get hired because they fill a number and not the best person for the job. That's racism.
I just laugh at all the gibbldegook I see posted by some of you on here. You live in some fantasy land.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What business are you a part of Shakes? Which State?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
I think you're setting yourself up to hear a made up number which you have no way of disputing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by shakes: Wow, stumbled across this conversation. Have any of you guys talking about "white privilege" actually worked in the real world?
No, we're all shut-in poors who have never worked a day in our lives, and we're also all the fabled "welfare queens"
yeap you sure caught us out
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
...The AI would have emerged years sooner had it not spent so much time trying to determine the difference between the analog world and the "real world" that humans kept referring to...
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota
I too would like to get a number on this.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Romney's advantage in the post-debate national polls of likely voters remains unchanged at 1.0 after several polls released today showed him with a slight lead. He has been tied or leading in every national poll of likely voters released since the debate.
Romney's streak came to an end this morning when Rasmussen (!) released a national poll where he trailed Obama by a point.
In other morning polling news, Obama got a few strong swing state polls today out of Ohio (O+6), Virginia (O+5) and Nevada (O+4). Other polls out of Wisconsin (O+3), Florida (O+1), Virginia (R+1) and Colorado (R+1) suggest the electoral race has tightened significantly since the debate.
<edit>On a slight digression, I just want to point out an annoyance I have with standard polling methodology. This morning, two separate polls of Virginia were released, with a six point difference in the polls' findings. Both polls' results are significantly outside the stated margin of error of the other. One would expect this to happen very infrequently, but in fact it happens all the time, which is why poll aggregation models like Nate Silver's are so necessary for understanding the true state of the race.
My annoyance isn't that different polls find different things; that's to be expected. Rather, it's that they rely on, in my opinion, bad methodology for determining their margins of error, significantly overstating the certainty of their findings. /end digression</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm right now waffling about going back long on obama and I don't know if i'll short romney again. I'm still pretty sure Obama is going to win but we stepped out of the "sure thing" category and I don't like being anxious about betting on stuff aaaaah.
IN OTHER NEWS
quote:'Mr. Romney figures he can win by simply erasing the Primary Campaign Romney and introducing a new, shinier, kinder and gentler General Election Romney. It’s breathtakingly cynical and suggests total contempt for voters.'
Yeah, well, it works, dunnit? Of course it suggests total contempt of voters. We're contemptible.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
Pretty sure affirmative action doesn't entail hiring people who are unqualified. Pretty sure. Like 100%
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by shakes: I'm sorry, but the most racist thing that exists in the country today is affirmative action. How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota.....there are certainly some that are qualified, but there are many who get hired because they fill a number and not the best person for the job. That's racism.
I just laugh at all the gibbldegook I see posted by some of you on here. You live in some fantasy land.
Just gonna requote this
if this is a real person who is actually not lying about being involved with hiring minorities then its amazing that he has decided that there's an affirmative action quota and just uses that perception to go on because, you know, he understands things and us poors don't
oh who am i kidding this is an obvious troll, it actually said that affirmative action was the most racist thing in the country
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: IN OTHER NEWS
quote:'Mr. Romney figures he can win by simply erasing the Primary Campaign Romney and introducing a new, shinier, kinder and gentler General Election Romney. It’s breathtakingly cynical and suggests total contempt for voters.'
Yeah, well, it works, dunnit? Of course it suggests total contempt of voters. We're contemptible.
Here comes that Etch-a-Sketch.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm right now waffling about going back long on obama and I don't know if i'll short romney again. I'm still pretty sure Obama is going to win but we stepped out of the "sure thing" category and I don't like being anxious about betting on stuff aaaaah.
There are still a lot of good sure-thing bets on the state electoral votes. Unless you think Michigan or Pennsylvania have a 20+% chance of going to Romney...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, Vice President Biden is certainly speaking up!
And I am especially pleased to see Congressman Ryan being reminded of his votes in the House.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Yeah. I;m really proud of Biden. I was afraid that going into the debate, Ryan would outclass Biden in speaking skills. But Biden seems to be on the attack. He is agressively calling out the descrepancies in Ryan and Romney's plan, Good for him!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I liked him going for the throat on foreign policy. While I'm far from happy with quite a lot of American (not just Obama's, really as long as I've been alive and aware really, but right now it's his) foreign policy, but it was nice to see him bluntly calling Ryan out and belaboring just how NOT different the Romney 'plan' is, aside from 'more military' and 'don't outsource to the UN'. Without ratcheting up US material involvement, how ELSE would Ryan go about it?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Biden showed incredibly poor form throughout the entire debate. His mocking laughs and sneers were very undignified. I've never believed him to be the caliber of person who should hold a position of leadership (let alone one as high as vice president) but tonight his character really shined through.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, capaxinfiniti, if you were interested in at least appearing (much less actually BEING) someone who at least made a head fake towards objectivity...rather than 'he was mean, and that shows poor character, and that indicates he shouldn't be a leader'. Shall we roll back the pages of the calendar to the primaries and talk about mean behavior? Anyway, as a counterpoint, there are plenty of people who are like myself very likely to vote Obama in a month, but who will also freely admit 'Romney had a solid and even a decisive debate victory', even when taking issue with how he did it.
Ryan's a tough guy. If he can't hold his bladder at an old man being 'mean', well the kitchen door is easily accessible and the sooner he uses it the better. But of course he won that debate in your eyes well before it ever took place.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Because I didn't wish to say more doesn't mean I couldn't. It was an observation. My comment didn't even rise to the level of an argument. If you feel my comment can be summarized as "Biden was a meanie" then you have much to learn about interpersonal communication as well as the influences of public perception.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe you could say more against Biden (that anyone could read in a given GOP mailer), but you complained that he was too mean using fancier language and that it reflected badly on his character.
Poor Ryan. He's ill prepared for that mean!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
Romney didn't interrupt his opponent the way Biden did, and he definitely was not condescending the way Biden was, with his smirking and referring to Ryan as "my friend".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
The difference is that, to my recollection, Romney seldom interrupted his opponent, although there were occasional moments of cross-talk. He did frequently talk over the moderator, but I think that is a relatively minor breach of debate etiquette, particularly when the moderator himself has since said he wanted to give the candidates freedom and leeway in their responses. If both candidates do this, you get a meandering, undirected debate, but still a debate.
Biden on the other hand refused to let Ryan speak at several points throughout the debate, steamrolling him to the point where any assertion Ryan made was immediately rebutted with no accommodation of normal debate civility. If both candidates do this you no longer have a debate you have a shouting match.
That said, I don't think the push back of "Biden laughed too much" or "Biden was condescending" or "Biden interrupted repeatedly" is very interesting. He did, and he was, and the debate was less than it could have been because of it. But in the end I think both sides did a good job of articulating their positions. Snap polls post-debate show that viewers' opinions were about even (in two of three, Ryan was deemed to have won narrowly; in one Biden was seen to have won comfortably) which suggests that both sides were able to do what they needed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
When the media says Romney did well, it means he "kicked ass".
When the media, using the same freaking focus group they did for the first debate, says Biden won, it's all a liberal conspiracy.
Biden was at 50%, Ryan at 39%, the rest thought it was even.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If your opponent is openly lying, how should one react in a debate?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If your opponent is openly lying, how should one react in a debate?
I think, for instance, Romney's approach to Obama's continued insistence that he had proposed a $5T tax cut* was appropriate. To my recollection, Romney didn't interrupt Obama at any of the several points when he made the assertion; rather, he waited until Obama finished and then rebutted it.
Compare that to this transcript of Joe Biden talking over Paul Ryan during the Medicare discussion:
quote:REP. RYAN: Here’s the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning Medicare into a piggy bank for “Obamacare”. Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s not what they said.
REP. RYAN: Seven point four million seniors are projected to lose the current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That didn’t happen.
REP. RYAN: What we’re saying --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More people signed up.
REP. RYAN: These are from your own actuaries.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More -- more -- more people signed up for Medicare Advantage after the change.
REP. RYAN: What -- what they’re --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No -- nobody is getting shut down.
REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No -- no -- (inaudible) --
REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress -- (laughter) -- to make up for lost ground -- (laughter) -- but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, don’t take all the four minutes, then.
If Romney had done this to Obama every time he tried to make a claim Romney wanted to dispute (or vice versa), the debate would have quickly devolved into bickering. Which is, to some extent, what happened last night.
*Whether this is a lie or not is obviously a point of contention; personally I think Obama was closer to the truth in this case than Romney was, but Romney obviously felt it was a misrepresentation of his plan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I felt the debate was actually a debate when its more like a conversation; ala the Stewart-O'Reilly debate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I felt the debate was actually a debate when its more like a conversation; ala the Stewart-O'Reilly debate.
In conversation we generally take turns speaking. It's actually kind of what allows us to converse.
I really don't want to make a big deal out of this, though. Like I said, it was impolite, but so what. That's life. Move on. Republicans who will spend the day trying to spin a 'bully' angle on Biden are wasting their time making a point that is irrelevant to the broader question of who we should elect.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I listened to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh and he was complaining that "Joey was his crazy self being all rude and grumpy." Rush Limbaugh was complaining that someone in politics should not be rude, that it is a bad thing. He said you shouldn't be rude in politics, but respectful. Mr. Ryan, he said, was respectful and polite.
I came back 45 minutes later after lunch and Mr. Limbaugh was proclaiming that all liberals and Democrats loved Twighlight--you can't be much more rude than that insult--and then he continued to complain that Vice President Biden is too rude.
My head hurts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I'd be surprised if he claimed he was never rude.
And I don't think him being rude is actually an argument against his idea that it's bad to be a rude politician.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: When the media says Romney did well, it means he "kicked ass".
When the media, using the same freaking focus group they did for the first debate, says Biden won, it's all a liberal conspiracy.
Biden was at 50%, Ryan at 39%, the rest thought it was even.
Just to reiterate something I said above, snap polls were mixed on whether Ryan or Biden won the debate.
CNBC*: Ryan (53%), Biden (41%) CNN/ORC: Ryan (48%), Biden (44%) CBS: Ryan (31%), Biden (50%)
In contrast, after the Presidential debate both snap polls agreed that the President had lost, and lost badly.
*I've seen some complaints on-line that the CNBC snap poll wasn't methodologically sound; I've also seen complaints that both CNN/ORC polls were demographically skewed. I haven't really evaluated those complaints, other than to register that they're out there. Also, this article lists several other 'snap polls' alongside those above, along with different numbers for the CNBC poll, but the three I pointed to are the ones I've seen repeatedly listed elsewhere. I don't know why The Examiner's numbers are different, or why they're reporting more snap polls, although the warning that the numbers could change because some of the polling is ongoing suggests that the polls are likely on-line opinion surveys, which are more susceptible to self-selection bias, as well as sock-puppetry.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
To give my take from my competitive debate background. Vice-President Biden won the debate, but it won't be a turning point for the broader election.
For the debate itself, I think Biden easily won on substance and on style it came out as largely a wash. For substance, let's be honest here. Most of the debate was on foreign policy. While Congressman Ryan didn't make himself look like a fool, the guy is an economic policy wonk. When you debate foreign policy with Mr. Biden, you're going to struggle. On the economic message I think Mr. Biden also had a distinct edge up until the closing minutes of the debate. Even though the question posed was "what would you say to a person who thinks this campaign is overly negative," Mr. Ryan's remark--while incredibly negative--was an uncontested flood of economic claims. In the end, substance wise, I give it to Mr. Biden.
For style, Mr. Biden took a risky gamble, and I think it ended up being a wash. Mr. Biden, like Governor Romney, went for an aggressive stance. When a debater does this, they're trying to force you to debate on their terms. It's easier to beat your opponent when you have them playing the game by your rules. The way to beat someone as aggressive as Mr. Romney or Biden is to be calm, collected, and confident. To the President's credit in his debate against Mr. Romney, he did read the debate properly and tried to remain cool and collected, but his presentation wasn't confident. He wouldn't keep eye-contact with Mr. Romney, he stumbled on his words, and he seemed flustered. By not seeming confident against a person exuding confidence, it paints the image of defeat.
Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, tried to play it in both worlds. At some points of the debate, he was calm and collected. The reason this strategy works is because it creates a contrast between the two. If you don't seem flustered, the aggressive person comes off as petulant and immature. It seems like they resort to aggression to compensate for a lack of substance. As my coach told me years ago, the more angry your opponent becomes, the calmer you become.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ryan, he did bite back with his own aggression from time to time. When you are also aggressive, you can't maintain the narrative of complete cool. I don't care if the Vice-President started it, when you interrupt to point out Mr. Biden's gaffes or to contest claims against your Medicare plan, you've become guilty of "rudeness" as well. You played the game that Mr. Biden wanted you to play, and he beat you at it.
I say it ends up a wash though because, for the most part, Mr. Ryan did remain calm. Enough that I think it's fair game to call Mr. Biden objectively more rude.
As for the broader political implications of Mr. Biden's debate performance, I think that at best he'll stop the hemorrhaging of support for the President. Those who were somewhat inclined to very inclined to support the President will be less likely to jump ship into the undecided camp. I don't think that the Vice-President will have changed the minds of any undecideds or leaning for Mr. Romney.
That being said, had Mr. Ryan won the debate, it would have cemented the narrative that Mr. Obama's campaign has fallen apart and I think that the trend of support for Mr. Romney would have continued unabated.
Either way, Mr. Romney's trend of support means that the ball in in the President's court now. If he wants to turn things around and get people to return to his camp, he needs to blow the roof off of the townhall. My suggestion? Stop using Senator Kerry as your stand in for Mr. Romney and get the Vice President in that role. The President needs to seem confident under pressure. He doesn't need to become more aggressive to win the debate, he just needs to make Mr. Romney's aggression look petulant.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I think Biden's technique was one that resonated with lots of younger people in his base. These were the people, I think, most disheartened by Obama's prior performance. So, I don't think he was trying to win over swing voters, I think he was trying to re-energize the base. And it worked. Ryan played along well enough to give Biden enough material to be legitimately exasperated about.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Because I didn't wish to say more doesn't mean I couldn't. It was an observation. My comment didn't even rise to the level of an argument. If you feel my comment can be summarized as "Biden was a meanie" then you have much to learn about interpersonal communication as well as the influences of public perception.
And now you're a meanie!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
I approve this message.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can all enjoy the ballad of Big Joe Biden.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
I approve this message.
Plus a million.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ryan's a tough guy. If he can't hold his bladder at an old man being 'mean', well the kitchen door is easily accessible and the sooner he uses it the better. But of course he won that debate in your eyes well before it ever took place.
quote:I believe you could say more against Biden (that anyone could read in a given GOP mailer), but you complained that he was too mean using fancier language and that it reflected badly on his character.
Poor Ryan. He's ill prepared for that mean!
I didn't say anything about Ryan or how well he handled Biden's disrespectful (and, frankly, childish) behavior and I certainly didn't decide who won the debate before it happened. You're pinning an argument and assertions on me that I didn't make and/or you threw up a straw man just so you could get off a few pithy comments. But whatever. Your response was no surprise to me and others have already articulated why my observation was relevant so I feel no need to belabor the issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And why should you? Your comments speak for themselves. They don't say anything. But by God, they speak for themselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
let me bet a million internet dollars that capax thinks that biden lied more and that ryan was mostly truthful
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Biden wasn't performing for the masses. He was performing for the base. And based on that, he blew it out of the water.
After Obama's performance, where the liberal reaction was "why didn't he say __________!?" Biden said everything single thing everyone wanted Obama to say. Now Obama can tone it down for the next two debates but still be aggressive. There's a way to call someone's BS without being a dick about it. It lies in the middle of Obama's first performance and Biden's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Samp, I will see your million Internet dollars, on the grounds that you will never be able to prove that capax has independent thoughts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Samp, I will see your million Internet dollars, on the grounds that you will never be able to prove that capax has independent thoughts.
Wow. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hey it is entirely hypothetically possible he could take a nuanced comprehensive political position that wasn't just basically point by point regurgitation from redstate-level poliblogs. hypothetically
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we're terrible
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It won't take long for Fox News or someone similar to suggest that it was actually an Obama supporter just trying to gin up sympathy for his campaign.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Or a random vandal, or someone shooting at someone else, or... anything, really. Crazed disgruntled conservative is the best bet, but it's by no means a sure thing. Unless police catch the guy, it's sort of a non-starter. Let's just agree across the aisle that whoever did it was a bad person.
On that note, I respect the HQ representative for not politicizing the attack.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It won't take long for Fox News or someone similar to suggest that it was actually an Obama supporter just trying to gin up sympathy for his campaign.
Already happened.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
<this link does not work on dead old ubb so i removed it>
Billy Graham endorses Romney and scrubs his entire site, which previously was calling out mormonism as a dangerous cult, ho ho ho
[ October 13, 2012, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
okay, okay, i'm done having cold feet, I'm ahead so much already that i'm just gonna go back in on obama
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
The thing is, they've done it before. This exact thing happened four years ago, and that's exactly what they did.
There's nothing terrible about taking past events and using them to guess at what happens in the future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
The thing is, they've done it before. This exact thing happened four years ago, and that's exactly what they did.
There's nothing terrible about taking past events and using them to guess at what happens in the future.
Who is they? If you mean some conservatives talking heads, well sure. But if we want civil discourse we can't tell conservatives in essence, "Your lowest common denominator is pretty much all I pay attention to." or "You are inexorably tied to your past until you meet some arbitrary standard of good behavior for an arbitrary period of time.
There's always people whose key philosophy is "Never miss an opportunity to take advantage of tragedy."
It's Rush Limbaugh saying, "I hope he fails!" in regards to Obama. I'm sure in Limbaugh's world the only thing that would make him happy is if Obama had an affair, punched a baby in the face, or admitted to "hating white people."
Of course these same talking heads are not going to take this incident and say, "Conservatism can sometimes be taken too far, and really we should be moderate in our political opinions."
or
"Maybe there's something to this whole handguns being a bad idea liberal ideology."
Since 99% of talking heads are listened to because they don't admit to being wrong, they instead find any explanation that makes their position appear unassailable, and latch onto it tight.
But we don't do ourselves any favors, when we act like most conservatives honestly think an Obama camper fired a gun at the office, in the hopes of drumming up sympathy for Obama. Honestly, who is going to vote for Obama because they believe somebody shot at some of his staff?
Here's Fox News' take. It's pretty standard stuff. I was unable to find any conspiracy sites peddling your prediction.
I do know though that if the positions were switched, somebody fired a gun at Mitt Romney's headquarters in Florida, and a poster got on and said that MSNBC or some liberal rag is going to accuse the Romney camp of doing it because they wanted to drum up support in a battleground state, I'd be bugged.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Problem is, those conservative talking heads work for Fox News. I don't watch Fox News 24 hours a day, nor does a single brief blurb on their website speak for the entire network when they have a cadre of people who routinely say batshit crazy stuff, like last week when several Fox News hosts claimed the BLS cooked the books on unemployment numbers for Obama.
I'm still willing to bet that over the last couple days at least one Fox News commentator made that suggestions. If I'm wrong I'll apologize for the insinuation, but I'll be surprised.
And I never said most conservatives, or all conservatives. I specifically listed Fox News or someone similar, which is to say, conservative media outlets. That's far from painting the entire conservative section of the country with the same brush, but I'll cop to painting the conservative media with the same brush, and I have no qualms about that. The "they" in my second post specifically refers to my first one, which is to say, Fox News. They did this four years ago.
quote:Honestly, who is going to vote for Obama because they believe somebody shot at some of his staff?
Who is going to do ANY of the bizarre whackadoodle crap that Fox News suggests and claims on a regular basis?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And I never said most conservatives, or all conservatives. I specifically listed Fox News or someone similar, which is to say, conservative media outlets. That's far from painting the entire conservative section of the country with the same brush...
This is true, and I certainly misread your post when I posted. For that I apologize.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just being a boring pos and reminding people of this again.
I mean, it's important, and yet nobody voting for romney even wants to think about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have yet to hear an answer for Romney's apparently unworkable budget that didn't involve 'but Obama is worse' (which I dispute as accurate, but can't reject as a reason to vote against Obama if one feels that way), or didn't simply accept Romney's statement that he doesn't have to give details because that's how business works.
It's been a long campaign season. I don't expect there actually exists an answer that explains why Romney's budget is both good and honest. Now, on to the sarcasm: we should simply trust Romney's integrity and experience, on the basis of his business career in which he was quite successful. Because people who are successful in business are automatically both honest and wise in all fields.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
blahblah something obama lemonade stand blahblah
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's fairly strong evidence that Romney's debate bounce is fading, as increasingly national polls are returning to a slight edge for Obama. For instance, the ABC News/WaPo poll published today has him up three, the Ipsos/Reuters web poll has him up one, etc. Obama also got a strong swing state poll from PPP in Ohio, which showed him up five (although Silver's pollster rating for PPP says it has about a three point democratic lean, so it's probably more like an O+2).
Romney's chances have subsided slightly, but he got some good polls today in VA and IA from ARG, and PPP's polls of FL and NC suggest he's maintaining his current lead there as well.
It seems likely that the election will come down to a set of six states that current polling suggest are leaning slightly to Obama: OH, CO, NV, IA, NH, WI. If Romney wins any combination of three of those that doesn't include NH, and if current polling elsewhere holds, he'll win the election*. Or if he wins OH and any other state from the list, he'll also win the election.
*The combo CO-IA-NV results in an EV tie, in which case the winner would be chosen by the House with each state's delegation getting a single vote. This would almost certainly result in a Romney win. The Vice President, however, would be chosen by the Senate, with each Senator getting a single vote. Given the projected partisan make-ups of the two chambers, an electoral tie would very likely result in a Romney-Biden presidency.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
an EV tie with a significant Obama national popular vote win resulting in the house picking Romney would be
uh
no, goodbye, not hanging out for the riots
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry, I can't see the math on that. What state combinations would you need for that tie? Is it even remotely in play?
ETA: ah, found the article. Doesn't seem likely.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It would finally let us kill the Electoral College though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Us, eh?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm an internationalist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh cool, so you're all up in everybody's business?
----
I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Canada invented getting up in everybody's business, after all we invaded two countries! Wait...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You managed to invade us twice while belonging to two different empires. You invaded us when you belonged to France during the Seven Years War, then you invaded us when you belonged to Great Britain in 1812.
It's no wonder where we got the inclination from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne is *totally right*, we invented getting into other people's business, because we invaded two countries.
Of course when we do it, it's 'getting into other people's business'. When certain...other countries do it, well of course it's something else entirely. But I suppose with a label as meaningless as 'internationalist', inconvenient consistency would be easily avoided.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
- china's brutal occupation of tibet: a.o.k. - china's warmongering towards taiwan: a.o.k. - america's electoral college process: GET ALL UP IN DAT BIDNESS
This here "Internationalist" stance sure seems useless
quote:I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Rioting. Bad things. Very bad things. But at least the end of the electoral college at an .. enhanced medium term schedule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently Paul Ryan did something which I really can't see as anything other than incredibly, remarkably toolish. He weaseled his campaign photo op team into a soup kitchen without proper permission to do a photo-op of him washing* dishes, you know, to show how much he cares about the poor or whatever**.
*well, "washing." they were, uh, already clean
**they had made the claim they wished to speak to the clientele, but made sure to come by only after it was closed and all the indigents wouldn't get in the way of the photo op
***to add injury to insult this is an organization that would have been cut of all funding and left to dry under ryan's own plan, I think
Proving you Care about Poors, the Republican Way?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
LOL, I was just watching the video of the Long-Term Unemployed undecided voter. There's a segment of him in his community college class, and they show you what he's writing in his notebook:
"My favorite movie would have to be Highlander. This movie is about a Scottish highlanders that becomes immortal. His name is Duncan McCloughed."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
could he be more of a stereotype wtf
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Rioting. Bad things. Very bad things. But at least the end of the electoral college at an .. enhanced medium term schedule. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I propose an 8-team playoff in place of the electoral college.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
LOL, I was just watching the video of the Long-Term Unemployed undecided voter. There's a segment of him in his community college class, and they show you what he's writing in his notebook:
"My favorite movie would have to be Highlander. This movie is about a Scottish highlanders that becomes immortal. His name is Duncan McCloughed."
And he calls himself a fan?
Inexcusable. And not just for the spelling.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Apparently Paul Ryan did something which I really can't see as anything other than incredibly, remarkably toolish. He weaseled his campaign photo op team into a soup kitchen without proper permission to do a photo-op of him washing* dishes, you know, to show how much he cares about the poor or whatever**.
*well, "washing." they were, uh, already clean
**they had made the claim they wished to speak to the clientele, but made sure to come by only after it was closed and all the indigents wouldn't get in the way of the photo op
***to add injury to insult this is an organization that would have been cut of all funding and left to dry under ryan's own plan, I think
Proving you Care about Poors, the Republican Way?
The problem with funding wasn't that Ryan's budget would cut it. The problem is that his funding comes entirely from private sources that insist on strict non-partisanship. If his sources decided the Ryan visit was an endorsement, the funding could dry up.
Ryan did not clear the visit with the management of the kitchen, where it would have been most certainly rejected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In addition to the whole thing being completely faked. But, apparently, we are so used to lies that it hardly bears mentioning.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
How about the vast iniquities ironed into a system that hinges upon certain very much non-representative swing states, in which individual voters are, as a function of the system, vastly more significant in the political process than those of states with larger populations, and less proportional representation.
And while I fully understand and sympathize with the problem that smaller states, with smaller economies and populations, need some insurance against the influence of larger states- this is still a system in which the world's 8th largest economy (California), rates almost no attention in an election season. That is decidedly a problematic situation. And as long as huge net tax contributors are having their political future decided by equally big tax recipient states, there will remain an inequity. There's a reason why it's politically feasible to shut down military bases in California, and not to do so in some other states. And it has nothing to do with which is costing more or producing more- it has to do with the fact that there are several states that would be considered 3rd world nations without the direct support of the federal government. And we aren't one of them- but we have to give them enhanced representation in the electoral college.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay, so you've pointed out some flaws in the EC system. That's largely true. But recognizing something has flaws doesn't mean it should be destroyed. Lots of flawed things still provide vital functions.
If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
The interests of several significant minority groups would be completely steamrolled, wouldn't they?
Seems like there's a lot of problems with the idea of getting rid of the Electoral college, too. So why advocate such a radical and potentially disastrous change?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Also, the EC is really easy to game compared with popular vote systems. As social scientists become better at predicting people, this will become a worse problem.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't. Reform is necessary. Of some kind. Radical change is too dangerous, for the reasons you mentioned.
But there are several plausible replacement systems, none of which offers a perfect solution. Voting by congressional district is one example. (in fact, the framers of the constitution envisioned this as the likely scenario- that congress would directly elect the president due to a lack of majority in the EC). A mixed system including popular and district voting is another.
You're not right on when it comes to how campaigns would run if it depended on the popular vote. First of all, the states are apportioned a fairly close representation according to their populations. Only the very smallest states have crazily high proportional representation. That means the urban centers of America are already having a huge influence on elections. For instance, urban centers in New York and California dominate those states, and ensure that all of the state's votes go to one side. A popular system would eliminate that pressure and open up rural areas in those states to campaigning. And it would free other smaller urban centers from the yolk of their larger rural counterparts. The fact is that the popular vote, despite the disincentive to vote in non-swing states, is relatively close, traditionally. Certainly, if anything it is often closer than the EC numbers suggest. I just don't think it should be dismissed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Well, really, look at that very statement. Popular voting "disenfranchises" no-one. Everyone would have a vote. He's talking about the attention of political campaigns, which would focus on urban centers. But what he's actually talking about, is the fact that if the popular vote ruled, the Republican party would not exist in its national form. There are just too many democrats- and if all their votes mattered just as much as everyone else's, the dems would win every election. Then fairly soon it wouldn't be the Dems and the Republicans. It would be the Civil Democrats and the Progressive Democrats, or whatever you can think of- as it is in many countries where there *is* no social conservative major party.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This article shows a few pretty clear pros and cons of the college:
Hmm. I think that the biggest argument for getting rid of it would be to enable third party candidates to have a real chance. But it seems fairly evident that a popular vote might be a bad idea. Especially considering the size of some of the states (California, Texas) and special interest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Why do you assume "cavalierly"? I am pretty sure that folks here (in general) have considered the EC quite thoroughly and seriously.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Well, really, look at that very statement. Popular voting "disenfranchises" no-one. Everyone would have a vote. He's talking about the attention of political campaigns, which would focus on urban centers. But what he's actually talking about, is the fact that if the popular vote ruled, the Republican party would not exist in its national form. There are just too many democrats- and if all their votes mattered just as much as everyone else's, the dems would win every election.
Where are you getting this? The parties are pretty solidly split across the country, with Democrat registration slightly higher but with more independents leaning Republican.
I think what you're really saying is this: because all the largest cities lean heavily Democratic, Democrats would get a significant edge (from where they are now) if the votes of all those cities were effectively pooled regardless of state lines.
That's true. Republicans would have a much more significant logistical challenge, I think, given the more rural/diffuse tendency of their constituency.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Then fairly soon it wouldn't be the Dems and the Republicans. It would be the Civil Democrats and the Progressive Democrats, or whatever you can think of- as it is in many countries where there *is* no social conservative major party. [/QB]
You think the Electoral College is what keeps that from happening here? And not, you know, the dramatically different history, traditions, and culture? Okay...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Why do you assume "cavalierly"? I am pretty sure that folks here (in general) have considered the EC quite thoroughly and seriously.
I didn't get that impression from Blayne at all.
In fairness to Sam though he seems cavalier about everything, so...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
In a world with mass communication, does that really matter any more?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The electoral college is a demon that brings the entire election down to just a very few states. Candidates spend time promising the world to Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and almost everyone else gets almost entirely ignored. That's not democracy, it's not even a republic; it's an oligarchy. There is simply no argument that makes up for that in the pro column. Far too many people are shut out of the process; period.
Going to a straight up popular vote enfranchises the whole country. No one's votes get left out. No one is powerless. Everyone has a voice, everyone has a chance to have their issues spoken to, no one ever has to feel that their vote doesn't count.
Voting by congressional districts won't work for a single reason: gerrymandering. More resources than every will be put toward making sure one party or another controls the state house every census so they can cook not just Congress, but the entire government, in their direction. No thank you!
I just don't get what the fear of big states is. Big states already have massive power in the electoral college! Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are considered the Big Three of any election, and it's specifically because they are big states, they just happen to swing their allegiance more often. But California has more electoral votes than the bottom 12 or so states combined. They already have a lot of power! And for that matter, no one campaigns in those 12 states! Their votes are totally taken for granted. And yet regardless of all that, the EC still makes a vote in one of those 12 states worth much much more than a single vote in California.
One voice, one vote, one person. That's how it should be. If you can't win based on the strength of your argument and candidacy, we shouldn't be using electoral trickery to make some people worth more than others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
The interests of several significant minority groups would be completely steamrolled, wouldn't they?
As opposed to now where major cities are pretty much ignored* and huge amounts of time and attention (and money) are spent on six undecided voters in Ohio and Iowa?
Which minority groups do you have in mind?
*Of the top 10 population centers, I would guess that only 1 (Philadelphia) gets any attention. Roughly 80% of the people in the US live in cities and suburbs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities.
I'm absolutely fine with that, personally.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities.
I'm absolutely fine with that, personally.
Why's that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because rural areas are not important. I understand that we Americans tend to mythologize rural regions, but it's stupid and illogical of us. You aren't entitled to a more valuable opinion because you live a hundred miles from the nearest theater and own a tractor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah.
So then who looks out for the interests of those people? Or is getting screwed over by a government that despises them just the price they pay for not being important?
By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Economically speaking, Tom's perfectly correct. Rural areas produce little of economic value that requires skills of any kind. While they produce the majority of the nation's food, and are home to most of its resources, that food and those resources are had at a low cost for that very reason. That these areas exercise such an unbalanced level of political influence is odd, since they would, and do, produce the same amounts, and in the same ways, no matter the economic conditions. So political changes affect these areas much less (apart from keeping some of them artificially populated through government spending).
Whereas in Europe, where the majority of capitals are politically and economical hypertrophic, they somehow manage to do better in the realms of transportation, health care, and education across the board. "Somehow" being of course focusing their resources on urban centers where most of the economically valuable and fungible activities take place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
Ranchers and farmers would still be a powerful constituency. Right now they are an OVERPOWERED constituency. They have way, way more political clout than the average person and have obscene amounts of money funneled their way. And the sad thing is, by and large they are co-opted by massive ag conglomerates that suck up the money that purports to be spent on those small time farmers. Also, there are fewer small holding farmers than at any point in history. There simply aren't that many farmers any more. Why on earth would you structure a national election in a country with hundreds of millions of people and incredibly diverse interests on a few thousand people in a single industry?
And why on earth do power plant workers count as any sort of useful voting bloc? It's one job in a country that has thousands of different kinds. At any given time, someone's job is going to be under fire. Why would you structure your elections to artificially empower some over others? That's ridiculous.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
That's true. I think people bring it up so often because the ones that are living in rural areas experience a level of poverty unknown anywhere else in the country.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
Oh cool! I sometimes forget that, though the Navajo Nation is the biggest reservation in the country, it doesn't actually contain a majority of Indians.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*nod
There are a host of issues not encapsulated in the raw numbers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
Are we now defining "minority" to mean person who holds any particular type of job? Do we count, say, librarians as a minority? Trombone players?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
Ranchers and farmers would still be a powerful constituency. Right now they are an OVERPOWERED constituency. They have way, way more political clout than the average person and have obscene amounts of money funneled their way. And the sad thing is, by and large they are co-opted by massive ag conglomerates that suck up the money that purports to be spent on those small time farmers. Also, there are fewer small holding farmers than at any point in history. There simply aren't that many farmers any more. Why on earth would you structure a national election in a country with hundreds of millions of people and incredibly diverse interests on a few thousand people in a single industry?
And why on earth do power plant workers count as any sort of useful voting bloc? It's one job in a country that has thousands of different kinds. At any given time, someone's job is going to be under fire. Why would you structure your elections to artificially empower some over others? That's ridiculous.
Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
Are we now defining "minority" to mean person who holds any particular type of job? Do we count, say, librarians as a minority? Trombone players?
If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In that strict sense, any discrete group occupying a cohort of less than 50% is a minority. It's very broad. Too broad to be very meaningful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Though I agree that the power plant workers example wasn't terribly well thought out; I'm not attached to it. It was just the first rural job that occurred to me after the obvious "farmer."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why should rural jobs count extra?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Not going to wade into the electoral college discussion, other than to note that according to Nate Silver's model this year the Republican is more likely to win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. So while it's generally true, I think, that the electoral college is of marginal benefit to Republicans, it's not universally the case.
Continuing with my poll fixation: Romney hit 50% in a poll for the first time today. Today's Gallup poll has him up 50/46, as does a poll out today from Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP. Rasumussen has him up 2 (49/47), ARG has him up 1 (48/47), IBD/TIPP has him down one (46/47) and Ipsos/Reuters has him down three (43/46). It's interesting that Obama's number doesn't fluctuate between the polls nearly as much as Romney's does, suggesting perhaps that Romney's support is softer but also that he has a little more head room. Or maybe it suggests nothing; one should always be cautious about over-generalizing from just a handful of polls.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
It's worth noting that the Electoral College isn't the sole representative of first-past-the-post systems (as opposed to proportional). It's just an incredibly awful version of it.
Aggregating votes on the state level is just horrible, but I'm actually pretty happy with our aggregation on the riding/congressional district level.
Gerrymandering is easily solvable, we simply don't really have that as a real problem.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting ... Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
Not quite true as well, Canada has five parties with a seat in the Parliament without proportional representation or ranked voting.
Most of our provinces have three or more parties as well with similar systems to the federal one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's Canada.
This is America.
We've had two party rule since the day the Constitution was signed, and there's rarely been any indication that the system was in danger. In recent years, it's only gotten stronger.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
So, anyone here watching the second debate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. But it is making me crazy. I can't stand listening to the governor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So...is he trying to run as a Democrat now?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
This moderator is doing a much better job of guiding the discussion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Better than Lehrer? Sure. Better than Raddatz? Not even close.
I love that she fact checked Romney, live, and shut him down. It was incredibly effective. He didn't push back at all. But other than that she's been walked all over.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB] - china's brutal occupation of tibet: a.o.k. - china's warmongering towards taiwan: a.o.k. - america's electoral college process: GET ALL UP IN DAT BIDNESS
This here "Internationalist" stance sure seems useless
Ignoring of course the fact that as Canada's largest trading partner, your economy sucking because of your terrible anachronistic political system means negative results for Canada via economic contagion; but you go ahead there with random meaningless tangents that you won't meaningfully debate either way.
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The moderator was supposed to basically do nothing substantial so being anything other than being a carpet is violating the rules te candidates agreed upon. The rules for the debates are insane and make it hard to get anything really good from them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting debate. Obama righted the ship, but Romney was pretty solid as well.
I'd say Obama comes out much better int he next news cycle, and then I think, if he chooses to, he can be very aggressive on the foreign policy debate.
The polls will be really interesting in the next few days.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible. Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here. Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either. But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I. Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
Loved the fact check part too. I'll say there is one policy Romney has stuck to: he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Sorry to disappoint, man! It's just that I think you've been misunderstanding me a lot, which is fair, because I've mostly been asking questions and making oblique comments, not making any big assertions.
I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever. But, that's me, and I think I'm a minority on that front. 90% of the arguments both Romney and Obama make are fundamentally flawed and taking the wrong approach, from my view.
So, to a certain extent, some of my comments here were from a devil's advocate position.
But I am genuinely leery of destroying old traditions without a very good reason, and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
The fact that California is big and mostly Democratic doesn't seem like a huge tragedy to me. That can change (hell, it has changed recent memory, even). It's a reinforcing phenomena, where more leftists are drawn here because of the atmosphere, so it gets more leftist.
The fact that the candidates don't campaign here isn't actually a tragedy to me. They'd campaign here if the people of this state gave them a reason to.
So, anyway. Sorry to get you worked up for a shadow boxing match! Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: . . . he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Well, what other choice do they have?
I mean, if one guy is offering you something you know you hate, and the other guy says he can give you something you want but refuses to say how... what do you choose? At least the second guy says he'll do it. Somehow.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible.
*Shrug* Don't debate me then, no one is forcing you, but don't make claims that aren't true or at best gross exaggerations.
quote: Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here.
I do not "permit" anything, I do not suddenly say "no" to discussion. I cannot control when people decide resorting to personal attacks is preferable to engaging the facts.
quote: Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either.
No idea what your talking about, I do not feel entitled to anything other than what every poster is entitled to.
quote: But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I.
We're discussing the United States, is your argument it is okay if China does it? Is the United States not to be held to a higher standard? Is the United States not a member of the UNSC? Is not the United States of America not a founding member of the United Nations and a signatory of the United Nations Charter, and thus legally bound to Article 2 subsection (1),(2) and (3)? China's actions and in actions are not relevant here.
quote:Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
2.1% GDP growth is stagnation, that and there's good evidence to suggest the number actually lower, in the negatives when you account for real inflation.
Then again, it was a snarky response to a snarky comment in good fun, but I guess coming from me its just screams "CONTROVERSY MAGNET" and jokes about people's country aren't funny when it's your country?
To forestall the inevitable "Bullshit you were completely serious!" Allow me to quote the exchange:
Orincoro: Us, eh? Blayne: I'm an internationalist. [Note, in context I meant "The Socialist International.", and largely a statement of how the cause of progress and egalitarianism is universal and without borders. See my above comment about how a "sluggish" since you object to the word "suck" through the well documented economic phenomenon of "contagion" is a real thing, economy can and will bring down the economies around the sluggish one. Otherwise why would the US be worried about the collapse of the European Union and why ASEAN is worried about the United States, since in 1997 the Asian economies had a huge crisis.
Blackblade, aka The Other BB: "Oh cool, so you're all up in everybody's business?"
Which I took it to be snarky riffing to which I responded in kind.
Blayne: "Canada invented getting up in everybody's business, after all we invaded two countries! Wait..."
Perhaps I needed to add "Oh snap!"? I feel BB got the joke;
The Other BB: "You managed to invade us twice while belonging to two different empires. You invaded us when you belonged to France during the Seven Years War, then you invaded us when you belonged to Great Britain in 1812.
It's no wonder where we got the inclination from."
To which Rakeesh responded to indignation.
Rakeesh: "Blayne is *totally right*, we invented getting into other people's business, because we invaded two countries.
Of course when we do it, it's 'getting into other people's business'. When certain...other countries do it, well of course it's something else entirely. But I suppose with a label as meaningless as 'internationalist', inconvenient consistency would be easily avoided."
And then came Samprimary who just can't resist his role as Forum Crusader!!! with his what would be on any other forum qualify as ~~a vendetta~~ to bring up what are in all seriousness, red herrings.nyoron~~
If you can't stand the heat get out of the fireplace.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Eh? People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Dan Frank; I do and have seriously considered the Electoral College and while I feel that Orincoro has the right of it, if you feel you really wish to hear my reasoning here goes:
I feel that the Electoral College and by extension First Past the Post voting to be inherently undemocratic; and serves as a modern day anachronism that only exists because back in the day the 'States' were actually sovereign entities, for instance during the Civil War Kentucky declared itself neutral(!) if I recall.
Nowadays though secession is laughable, the very idea of the states exercising anywhere near the same level of sovereignty against or in opposition of national will is a fantasy. The very idea that someone from the most populace state such as California could automatically elect the President by virtue of its population such as Virginia back in the day is just as ludicrous.
The Electoral College has served its purpose and has run its course and needs to be dismantled; the basic principle of democracy is One Man-err Person, One Vote. The Electoral College ignores the votes of millions of people, because they are from states that are so Red or so Blue as Stewart says, that courting them is unnecessary and can safely be ignored.
Secondly First by the Post is inherently undemocratic because mathematically it will always lead to a two-party system where a vote for a third party is automatically a vote against the other party whose platform is mostly similar to yours and would represent your interests better than the other primary party.
It ignores smaller parties with otherwise attractive platforms but lacking in the money to compete and prevents alternate political platforms from getting traction in the national assemblies; Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Ideally you want Mixed-Member Proportional and political parties recognized as A Thing(tm) and be inbuilt into the Constitution and then do away with the Electoral College entirely.
Then truly every person will have a vote and every vote will be meaningful as a Republican in New York will finally have as much say as a Democrat in Missouri.
The only counter argument I hear is comes from either the more American specific (States Rights) and European specific (Extremist Parties holding the Balance of Power). I consider the former irrelevant in this day and age when megacorporations are gaining in power as we transform into probably an Orwellian "Jennifer Government" dystopia where boundaries in general cease to matter and the latter I consider fitting punishment for people who are silly or stupid enough to not vote.
Will people in California have more say then Iowa because of more people is more votes then less people with less votes? I don't think so, that would be to say that Californians are so inherently different in their interests that Californian interests could potentially harm Iowian interests which I feel is silly.
Not that there aren't issue where this could potentially be the case, such as Arizona wanting water from the Great Lakes; but any sane central government able to rise above the petty squabbles of its constituent states and elected proportionally instead of by geographically specific ridings should be less swayed by geographical paraochial concerns; and "pork" federal funding should decrease as constituents nolonger represent "areas."
Alternatively you could use the Shortest split line method with its algorithm available online and open sourced to be publicly critiqued and improved to still maintain geographical ridings. But the results will likely statistically vary extreme enough with lopsided elections that you might away just opt for MMP representation.
Thus you also eliminate gerrymandering which is a huge voter suppression issue in the United States.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing
How could giving me a choice other than a center-right party and an extremely right party be a bad thing?! Seriously!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I didn't watch the whole debate, but my favorite part was when Romney promised to create 12 million new jobs and later rebutted something Obama said with "Government doesn't create jobs!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... China, they are our largest trading partner ...
Edit to add: Not that I want to wade into the larger point, I'm just sayin'. Credit where credit is due.
On a related note, but not addressing that issue specifically. This is of interest:
quote:China is poised to lose its place as the U.S.’s biggest creditor for the first time since the height of the financial crisis, blunting one of Mitt Romney’s favored attacks in the presidential campaign. Chinese holdings of Treasuries rose 0.1 percent this year through August to $1.15 trillion, Treasury Department data on international capital flows released today show. Japan, a stronger ally of the U.S., raised its stake by 6 percent to $1.12 trillion, on pace to top the list of foreign creditors by January.
[ October 17, 2012, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
I didn't say rapid, I said eventual/inevitable. I believe here is a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture, but I feel that this may no longer be sufficient to prevent a 2 party system from arrising, the Bloc has collapsed, and the Liberals were badly mauled and the NDP by shifting slightly to the middle and with the Conservatives a "umbrella" party of various economically or socially right wing parties. Thus spoiler vote is definitely a thing and results in anyone seeking to not let the CPC win must find the party must likely to win and strategically vote for them to win. This is liberals in some ridings but may increasingly be the NDP.
quote: The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, if you'll recall it wasn't about China v US. It was about your claim to be an 'internaionalist' (which I suspect means whatever you want it to mean at a given moment), coupled to your denunciations and sneering at a few examples of American behavior. I wasn't claiming the US was clean and pure, I was calling your implied claim of rational objectivity so much bunk. Because it is. You're 'an internationalist' when the US invades two countries. You're something else when China sticks it to Tibet, or threatens war over free elections in Taiwan, or has thugs brutalize the families of dissenting lawyers, so on and so forth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't know why you felt the need to step into a joking exchange between me and BB to bring up other threads airing vague grievances, nor do I see your claim about me having some kind attitude of "objective rationality" convincing as the most appropriate response to the post in question about said attitude.
Everyone has two choices, to use comments as a springboard for bickering or to constructively discuss the topic at hand. America having a "sluggish" economy is definitely I feel worthy of discussion and saddened that you felt the need to focus on implied tone rather than the substance as to what was said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture ...
Bah, video is 6 minutes long and totally theoretical. Theory is fun and all, but I tend to think that if a model has to ignore most of the historical record as exceptions or in your vocabulary "events" then I think it's time to find a new model.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
Mucus -
quote:People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not really, Canada was expanding considerably through most of its history, with a rapidly growing population and consistently shifting demographics. That plus the Quebec Question, the question of Canada's role within the Empite/Commonwealth (Sir Wilfred Laurier is my favorite Prime Minister if you ever wondered), not being an independent country for most of our history, can all be very circumstances as to why we didn't shift to a two party system sooner.
A look at three countries chosen at random with Winner take all systems and are developed G20 countries: Mexico, South Korea and the United Kingdom all show typical Two Party politics; third party's exist in each example and actually get a non trivial amount of the votes relative to American Third Party's but seemingly no where near what would qualify as a vibrant multiparty democracy.
Mexico had one election recently where they had a 33% three way split it seems, but every other recent election is typical two party, without looking into it my guess is ~drama~.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: disenfranchises tens of millions.
Voter turnout in 2008 was only ~132 million.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
rivka -
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see your point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: @Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
The best solution to solve gerrymandering would be to create non-partisan commissions at the state level to determine districts. It's what California does.
Near as I can tell, there's no such thing as gerrymandering at the presidential level. We don't redraw the state lines every ten years. It's simply a function of how the EC apportions votes in combination with the census.
Now, if we changed the law to make it so that the EC afforded states votes based on population rather than based on congressional representation, I'd be more in favor of keeping it. It would remove many of my objections. But it still wouldn't be perfect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Disenfranchises hundreds of millions would be more accurate I'm guessing? Presuming we define "Don't care to vote as vote does not matter/A Pox on both their houses." as disenfranchise, which I think is reasonable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't count "a pox on both their houses" people. That's a separate issue.
I do count "there's no point in voting, I live in a red/blue" state.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I do count "there's no point in voting, I live in a red/blue" state.
People who make the choice not to go to the polls are not disenfranchised. Or are only by their own choice.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree.
There's institutional discouragement from participation.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would argue that not having a vote that matters is essentially the same thing as not having a vote at all.
The difference between the legal difference and the effective difference doesn't matter much to someone whose vote is useless. I'm far more interested in actual equality as opposed to equality on paper.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
Once that is fixed, if conservatives such as Dan_Frank still want a compromise between the first-past-the-post EC and a fully proportional system, then I would suggest looking at shrinking the the aggregation. Rather than lumping all votes together by state, I would be more familiar with the Canadian system where votes are lumped by each riding (districts).
Swing states become swing ridings, but swing ridings are much less predictable and move around much more often. It's not perfect, but I still think it's an improvement. Even for conservatives (for example, our conservative party doesn't just throw up their hands when it comes to major cities, they *compete* well in cities).
As for exceptionalism, that may be a discussion for another day. I do actually think that the US does have unique attitudes. "Can-do" optimism is (was?) one of them. kmbboots has spoken pursuasively about the link between prosperity and virtue in the American mind which is another example that comes to mind.
Blayne Bradley:
Ok, so two of the countries you listed, Mexico and South Korea don't even use FPTP in the way that we're talking about. They mix in proportional representation to give representation to third parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting
The countries you're left with are Canada and the UK. The UK has ten parties in Parliament, Canada has five.
We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
Correct response.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm perfectly clear in my meaning in the context of our discussion, if I see a parliament or a senate or congress dominated overwhelmingly by two parties its a two party system that pressures voters into voting for the lesser of two evils and consistently so.
I was actually looking at Presidential elections by mistake and not parliamentary elections; but stating that because Canada has 5 parties and UK having 10 is disingenuous because how many of those parties actually matter if one party has the majority needed to no longer worry about opposition?
Simple election analysis of Canada shows the problem perfectly. The Conservatives have a majority, voting by your conscience in a close election may result in a spoiler effect in which the Conservatives, by virtue of being an "open tent" party will recieve the majority of majority votes will always win a majority government; because all the other voters are split up among all of the other smaller parties.
The result of this is that rational voters will strategically vote for the party that is more likely to win that somewhat better reflects their interests as per the video.
So in Canada this means less for the Liberals and more for the NDP if the principle goal of the average non Conservative voter is to prevent a Conservative majority then your vote is clear, vote for any party in your riding that is NOT the CPC that is most likely to win.
So the Bloc having a few seats and the Liberals having seats mean absolutely nothing, because a majority government in Canada means you can do pretty much anything and the only real opposition is the Courts.
If your definition of "multiparty" is that a country only needs to possess more than 2 party's having seats then not even the United States would qualify as there's seats held by Independents.
Again, there's also the undeniable example of the United States which has FPTP and is a two party system; we haven't "gone" from anywhere, merely examples of where the system is conspiring to divide up politics between two major parties is the point and the theory is a compelling reason as to why FPTP is undemocratic.
I don't understand why you feel that theory is to be tossed out of the winds but certainly in the context of American elections there's a two party system and the spoiler effect a compelling reason as to why the status quo is god.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
As a history grad student, I've seen enough cases in history where someone made the argument you're both making, and it was effectively a distinction without a difference.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
That is not what I said, or rather you seem to have missed my explanation; WWII resulted from the world partaking in protectionist measures that further excabated the Great Depression, the current Bretton-Woods system exists to prevent that; thus if the US abandons Bretton-Woods and partakes in protectionism then WWIII could be a likely outcome from the economic instability and crisis that follows.
Do you at least see the point I am getting at? That I used :goonsay: hyperbolism within the post shouldn't actually obscure the broader point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
There's also nothing to stop "bipartisan" commissions from simply drawing the lines in such a way that the same representatives get elected in each election and other backroom deals.here. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen...
That's very possible. Apparently, Canada went from you guys primarily have (ridings drawn by government) to bipartisan in 1903. That changed to non-partisan in 1963. But I guess what I'm saying is that it did happen and it happened in a significantly less progressive country than the Canada of today.
I guess we will see, but I think that with the US following us slowly in making same-sex marriage legal or allowing gays in the military (or making really baby steps toward universal healthcare), I think that reforms we did decades ago should be doable (translation might be "yes, we can").
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
I'm a liberal (in the Burkean sense, a conservative if we're just looking at the American nomenclature). I think that progressive reform should be handled carefully, because otherwise we're liable to destroy valuable traditions. Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
Earlier in my post I explained a substantive way we disagree about how much the EC "disenfranchises" people. I'm with Rivka on that one. All of this isn't too say I'm somehow adamantly opposed to reforming the EC at all, by the way. Just seems like there's a bit of overzealousness here, from you and others.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
My answer is below, because it has to do with 3rd parties.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
So...
An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology. I think the standard Libertarian line about Romney and Obama being the same is malarkey. They're not.
But lots of parties in a popular vote system can deeply confuse this ideological struggle, and also have really nasty side effects.
Here's a concrete example: Let's say the Affordable Care Act is a major issue of the day. Obama will keep it as it is. Jill Stein will dramatically increase its funding and influence. Romney will dismantle it.
If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You presume some sort of FPTP system where the first person to get a plurality wins; if you had instant run off where people get also alternate candidates to apply their vote to you would have most of the Jill Stein votes go to Obama to avoid Romney winning from the vote splitting.
Your also not considering what the House/Senate would look like with viable third parties, third parties by virtue of being smaller can have much more discipline and organization that even the GOP would be amazed at; just look at the Libertarians conspiring to get Ron Paul elected by planting agents as Romney voters.
So you would avea case of 40% GOP seats, 30% Democrat and 30% Greens, the Democrats and Greens only need to form a coalition with 1 or 2 GOP and the ACA can't be dismantled.
As long as you can avoid the Spoiler Effect then you can have third party's capable of better reflected choices and preferences without also having a candidate the majority do not want winning.
quote:Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
The EC makes the country more vulnerable to voter fraud, is the absolute most troublesome contribution to voter apathy in the country, presents the non-negligible risk of creating an EC outcome which literally results in riots and an entire presidency being considered completely illegitimate in the eyes of most of the country, and is in all ways a perfect candidate for proactive removal.
It will be removed one way or another. Its days are numbered. The question is whether this happens before it has a chance to really, REALLY supremely dick up an election.
It is not even really that radical a change. The EC has already had "radical change" (The vice president used to be the candidate with the second most EC votes) and weathered this kind of perfectly valid change perfectly fine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
Really? Tell that to Gore voters in 2000.
Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point. We always cry about how low voter participation is a big problem, but what's the point of voting if you know when you wake up that morning exactly how the vote in your state is going to go? If we all voted right now, today, there's no way of knowing how the national election would go. But in the vast majority of states, we'd know exactly how our state would go. Do you really feel like you have a vote if every election is already a foregone conclusion?
If everyone had an equal say and someone loses, then that's just how it works. But that's not how our system works. We have a mechanism in place that can award the presidency to the loser. It happened 12 years ago. We have a mechanism in place that essentially takes the votes for the loser and throws them out.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
You'll have to explain why you think this would happen. Because I don't see it at all. Switching to a popular vote would have no effect at all on the strength of third party bids. In fact, I think the electoral college actually helps them. A candidate could conceivably spend all their time in Vermont and at least get the support of a single state. In a popular vote with people spread all around the country, the job becomes herculean. I don't know what mechanism you think the EC performs that stifles third party votes.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology
I'm with you right up until you suggest the best way to solve this is by forcing people to choose between Democrats and Republicans. They aren't my first choice. I don't want them. I'm stuck with them. Lots of people feel that way. But you think it's a good thing that we're stuck with fewer, crappy choices? That's terrible.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
To continue what I was saying and to steal from Blayne, yeah, there's a really, really simple solution: Ranked voting/Instant run-off.
Fewer choices is stupid. There are common sense solutions that result in a clear winner without allowing the situation you described and without forcing people to choose from the narrowest of possible choices.
Because the ultimate problem with your stance is that the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, while real, is incredibly thin relative to the broader political spectrum. The difference between Romney and Obama is like the distance between The Mississippi and the Atlantic Ocean. "Oh my!" you might say, "that's so far apart!" until you realize how far away Asia is. Our choices are incredibly limited, and that's very demoralizing to a lot of people.
Every year we're forced to choose between two people that we hyperfocus on to pretend the daylight between them is more like a solar flare than a flashlight. And that choice is even more limited if you live in a certain state. It's demoralizing. Inclusiveness is highly discouraged because people are pigeonholed before they ever reach the ballot box.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:by Samprimary is the absolute most troublesome contribution to voter apathy in the country
QFT.
That's one of my main arguments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point.
Correct. The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tell that to Gore voters in 2000.
You mean, like me?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
This is something we haven't talked about as well, but it's equally problematic. Candidates only have to speak to the interests of a few states, which often don't at all match up with many others, order to secure an election.
Does anyone think the conversation on lifting the embargo on Cuba would be the same of kowtowing to the Cuban vote in vitally important Florida weren't an issue?
What about the issue of ethanol and corn subsidies to farm states?
Promising Ohio and Pennsylvania blue collar workers we're get them back their mining and industrial job. My god, we're setting NATIONAL energy policy based on the demands and desires of a few tens of thousands of people in a handful of states who want to keep their jobs!
It's a terrible way to govern. It's a stupid way to govern. It ensures that some people matter more than others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
even ignoring special interests ENTIRELY and imaging a fantasy fairlyland where all of the states still matter to the election even just a little (as opposed to now where something around 10% of the population ultimately matters at all), you would STILL have the massive disparity. Live in Wyoming? Congratulations! Your vote outvotes literally four Californians.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In this instance I am proud to have been mugged Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's a question: who would, today, if conceiving of a system to handle Presidential elections, would craft something like the EC? Because really, I don't see anyone doing it if it didn't already have the inertia of tradition pushing it along.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would craft it only if I wanted an election where I kinda sorta wanted to gouge popular will but then have my appointed buddies decide the election for me but keeping the result close enough that people don't complain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Does anyone else besides me see something suspicious in the fact that the moderator of the second presidential debate, Candy Crowley, happened to have on hand a transcript of Obama's September 12 Rose Garden speech, which she held up and sided with Obama, saying he did say from the very start that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack? It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand. What Obama actually said in the Rose Garden speech on September 12 was that America would never give in to terrorism. He did not say that the Benghazi attack that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the American abassador to Libya, was a terrorist attack. That is what Obama claimed in the debate, but that was an obvious attempt at deception, considering his repeated claims for almost two weeks that the deaths were not the result of an organized terrorist attack.
The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember her actually having a paper copy of the transcript on hand.
She corrected him, and I'm not sure the crux of her correction was wrong, then she sort of backed off and allowed him some space.
I think she realized she's stepped over the line and tried to back off, but the damage was done, which is also why it's difficult to see it as anything but unplanned and accidental.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney, however passionat your exclamation point was. But then you see Obama conspiracies literally everywhere, so I'm sure if you decide to don your heavily scrawled signs again, we'll at least be entertained.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
OMG! A journalist knew a fact. I can understand why people are suspicious. She not only knew the questions ahead of time but had conducted at least one interview about the speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
I wasn't surprised. I mean, I'm a news junkie, but the news is literally her job. And that wasn't exactly a small fact to know given what the media have been harping on lately.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We can tell Obama is doing well when Ron steps up to claim there's a conspiracy.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
QFT.
Can anyone convince me a vote for a third party here in Chicago matters, at all?
ETA:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand.
You're right! But Romney messed up, he phrased his attack wrong and you could see it on Obama's face. It wasn't a conspiracy it was a unfortunate slip of the tongue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It wasn't just a random fact. She had personally been corrected on that point during an interview with David Axelrod.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Corrected in what way? Because from where I sit, she was wrong on the facts, and if Axelrod fed her the fact then he's wrong as well (or, you know, spinning).
The President referred generally to 'acts of terror' in his Rose Garden speech, but not specifically to the Benghazi attack as being an act of terror. He then spent two weeks steadfastly refusing to refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, even when pushed on the issue by reporters, even after other elements within the White House and State were doing so. The President was very cautious about the application of the specific term to the specific case (and rightfully so, I would say). To assume that the general comment about "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech was referring specifically to Benghazi requires that you ignore the following two weeks of careful evasion of the issue by the President.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not even the Republican Richard Nixon? Not even George H.W Bush who said he would not raise taxes?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
He'll get another chance on Monday, but he was already blunted on his best line of attack. Obama knows what's coming and how to parry it.
He'll have to come up with something better and more sustained, because the clock won't save him when 90 minutes are spent on basically Israel, Iran, Libya, and Syria.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
From what I gathered, Obama said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks, that we wouldn't be afraid/give in/some platitude to "these acts of terror."
In the debate, Obama referenced this, saying he remembered being in the Rose garden, calling it an act of terror.
Romney said that Obama never called it an act of terror, and that Obama was lying.
Crowley then said, after Obama and Romney bickered, that Obama did say "acts of terror," but that Romney was correct in his assertion that saying that the attacks were committed by terrorists didn't come until much later.
I don't know why conservatives got their panties in a bunch over it. Obama didn't lie, and neither did Romney. Romney just didn't understand the nuances of the English language very well in that moment. And came off looking dumb. And Crowley affirmed both candidates' stances and saved us a minute of useless squabbling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney but you'll believe it anyway no matter what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is the kind of "lie" Obama get's caught in? It's too bad Republicans are against closing Gitmo. Because Obama talked about doing that and never did. Of course, the Republicans would look a little stupid blaming him for it, but still. It would be kind of like a doddering old man making fun of Obama for getting us into a war in Afghanistan... because it didn't work out with the Russians. Wait what?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income...
Is that the yardstick? I thought we were arguing over whether it was a consensus that taxing capital gains was bad, and higher capital gains taxes were themselves always also bad.
A bit of old news w.r.t. this thread, but I heard a story on NPR this morning (which was also old news; I didn't realize it at the time, but it was recycled from a few months ago) and it put me in mind of this thread of discussion.
quote:Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
This may oversell the consensus, since I know there is at least one influential academic study that argues that due to finite markets there should be a lower bound on corporate tax rates. So rather than saying all economists agree there should be no corporate income tax, it might be fairer to say that the strong majority of economists believe there should be no corporate income tax, with a minority believing that it should be lowered but not eliminated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are we confusing corporate income tax with capital gains tax?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are we confusing corporate income tax with capital gains tax?
D'oh! If by we, you mean me, yes, yes we are. If I weren't morally opposed to the use of emoticons, I would add a blushing embarassedly smiley here.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think this is all moot until we have women in office. Lots of them, really. Binders full of women.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
binders full of women, man.
i mean i stopped and rewinded it. I was like "what did he just say?" and was doubly confused because he was concertedly ignoring the issue of gender pay parity to talk about how hard he worked to hire binders full of women and I'm like
"i think there were about a thousand better ways to frame that"
ofc i later find out it turned into a megameme
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm torn on that remark. On the one hand, it is precisely the sort of thing one would expect someone who had a guilty conscience with respect to including women would say. On the other hand, it is actually quite important politically that one present the correct appearance on that matter, such that I can see anyone-guilty conscience or not-being concerned about it.
But hopefully this will permit more discussion on just which Romney Mitt Romney *is* with respect to insurance coverage for contraception and abortion and other matters, since he hasn't been much called to account on it so far. It is interesting just how strikingly honest the Etch-a-Sketch remark was, and how little Obama has been able to hammer on it so far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is almost like having binders full of Jamaican neighbors.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think I'll switch sides. I want Romney to win. Just so I can have one of those calendars that lists a gaff or a funny quote every day. Man, it was great when George was in office. Funny quote every day!
''I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me.'' —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
''It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.'' —President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
''I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.'' —President George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
''Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican.'' —President George W. Bush, declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
''It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.'' —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie.
I'd ask why you don't care about Romney's much more frequent and brazen lying, but I doubt I'd get an honest answer, if I got an answer at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Upset that Gov. Ronmey wasn't able to capitalize on tragedy? How can we trust a person whose mind works like this?
It's about 4 minutes into the first video. A partial transcript:
quote: Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…
Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.
Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?
Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?
Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.
Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
(Bolding mine)
Seriously. Between that and the 47% remark, he had better have raked in the big bucks at the fundraiser.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do so enjoy how Ron's hatred of Obama wedded to his dishonesty creates statements such as that one. Obama isn't just a liar, he's the lyingest liar who ever lied in American politics *EVER*, and not only that it will be proven to be so.
Obama isn't just evil, he's actually a sort of heroic level of evil, a once-in-centuries level of evil. I'm not sure Romney's horse is white enough or his lance long and keen enough to slay such a beast!
Perhaps Lyrhawn, especially with his studies of late, might regale us with some really shining examples of lying politicians that might be less well known but also especially amusing, but that would only ever be a sidebar since you, Ron, are infamous in politics for believing only what you wish to believe. I could almost wish Obama was what you claim he is-secret foreign Muslim commie atheist-because if so you would've found yourself carted off to a camp somewhere ages ago.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
(emphasis mine)
If we're gonna talk about it, let's have the text handy.
And here's where it was discussed during the debate:
quote:OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do. The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to... ROMNEY: Yes, I — I... CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please. ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. OBAMA: That's what I said. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying? OBAMA: Please proceed governor. ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. OBAMA: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror... OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. CROWLEY: It did. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary — OBAMA: Candy? ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how — OBAMA: Candy, I'm — ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous — CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation — CROWLEY: I know you — OBAMA: — about foreign policy. CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also — OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too. CROWLEY: — the transcripts and — OBAMA: I just want to make sure that — CROWLEY: — figure out what we — OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
Without going into my opinions on what any of this meant, I would like to point out that Candy Crowley is CNN's chief political correspondent, and I would expect her to be very familiar with what was said where and when. That's her job.
Also, she has said that she feels the administration is vulnerable on this point -- something she even pointed out at the time -- and she was trying to move the debate along:
quote:Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you, actually, last night. What I was trying to do ... I was trying to move this along. The question was Benghazi. There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic — that they did take weeks to go, “Well, actually, there really wasn’t a protest and actually didn’t have anything to do with the tape. That took a long time. That’s where he was going. That was his first answer. And then we got hung up on this, “Yes, he said. No, I didn’t. I said terror. You didn’t say terror.” And then there was this point they both kind of looked at me. You know, he was looking at me and the president was looking at me. And what I wanted to move this along — could we get back to this? So I said, “He did say acts of terror, called it an act of terror. But Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.
You may continue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, perhaps this is just a quibble, but when the first president Bush said, "Read my lips--no new taxes"--and then a couple of years later he did raise taxes, he was not lying, he was breaking his promise. And many people credit it as one of the main reasons for his failure to win re-election. So he paid for it. Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. On both counts, Obama is headed for the dustbin of history.
And Rakeesh, it is not accurate to claim that I hate Obama. I hate his policies, and what he represents as someone who does not believe in America, and in his utter lack of qualifications to ever have been elected. I also hate the stupidity of people who ignored all the valid criticisms and warnings and went ahead and voted for him in 2008. That whole attitude of willful blindness I regard as exasperating, and I worry about how soon such thinking will succeed in completely negating all the good that America has stood for, when they they allow evil to take over effective control and turn the "lamblike-beast" of Revelation 13 into a dragon.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, perhaps this is just a quibble, but please stop referring to Americans as one single-minded group. At least half flatly disagree with you on Obama (and many other points), and they are every bit as American as you are. Knock it off.
(Posted this before Ron added his second paragraph, and while I'd ordinarily argue about Obama's Americanism it seems obvious that Ron considers him the Anti-Christ or the harbinger of same, and I stopped getting into religious arguments a long time ago. No point, and it wastes my time.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. Which is manifestly demonstrated by the fact that the first president Bush failed to win re-election.
I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him. Truly, logic and factual argument are not everything to everyone, no matter what they may profess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him.
To be fair to Ron, I had the same question about George W. Bush the second time around. I couldn't come up with any answers that were not highly critical of his supporters and derogated their motives, information sources, and/or intelligence, and still have not been able to do so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The first Bush failed to be re-elected for several reasons. His broken promise on taxes was one, as it annoyed his base, but there was also the death of Lee Atwater, Bush's main operative; the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hall hearings which angered women voters against the old-boy network; Bush's support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1990; affirmative action, and the Clean Air Act, all of which annoyed his supporters; and most of all there was the tanking economy that forced Bush to raise taxes in the first place. Then there was the charismatic Clinton who came from a poor background and promised to fight against the rich fatcats (i.e. Bush) for the middle class.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: I could have an honest discussion about Obama's faults if I felt you would be fair-minded. It doesn't seem occur to you that Romney has lied repeatedly to secure election, yet you are quick to chew up Obama on this point.
Any conversation we'd have would be intolerably one-sided. Republicans good Democrats bad. Republicans love America, Democrats hate it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You may say you don't hate (with a capital H or something) Obama all you like, Ron. But then on the subject of Obama you are first a known liar*, and second your own words explaining your thoughts on the man undercut your claim anyway. You think he's destroying America, and willfully lying in order to do so. America is a country you claim to love quite a lot, but you also claim that Obama is willfully and with prior intent working to weaken and ultimately cripple it.
Very few people could truthfully claim not to hate someone who was maliciously working in wicked ways to destroy something they dearly love, so your claims to the contrary I feel quite comfortable in rejecting your words that you don't hate Obama-particularly since you can be relied upon to lie to your position's advantage, even on factual matters-see below.
*I need go no further than to point to your behavior with respect to a video you claim and claimed for a long time to portays clear statements that Obama was not born in America. Even when it was proven beyond any doubt that it didn't say what you claimed, even when you were informed that the portion you said proved your case was shown not to do so, you continued to lie and claim it did. You simply cannot be trusted to speak honestly when it comes to Barak Obama, and no one reading this needs to take my word for it. The thread and links to it are still here.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For some voters (and politicians) it's actually pretty simple. White, god-fearing Christian men are supposed to be in charge, wealth and success must be rewarded as proof of worth, poverty must be shunned because all poor people are willful drags on the country, and everyone else should just do as they're told. Anything else is un-American.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Bush didn't get re-elected because the Dem's actually had a decent candidate. Too bad the Republicans don't, this time around.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Truly, logic and factual argument are not everything to everyone, no matter what they may profess.
I'm still giggling over this...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why vote for Obama?
- The economy is slowly coming back from the position the last administration left us. Obama has passed 18 tax cuts for small businesses, presided over thirty straight months of job growth, passed the Recovery Act that helped prevent another Great Depression, and prevented the collapse of the auto industry. In the first quarter of this year the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 posted their best quarters in nearly fourteen years, while the NASDAQ had its best quarter since 1991. I see no reason to return to the failed financial policies that got us here in the first place. -He protects citizens against predatory practices. He passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that represented the toughest financial overhaul in decades, and passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to prevent credit card companies from scamming customers. - He expanded tax credits for hiring and training veterans, and expended the GI Bill. - He overturned Bush's stem-cell ban, and generally promotes science over ideology. - ObamaCare. - He's for equality. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to improve women's chances for equal pay and he (finally) got rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. - Foreign policy. He focused on Al Queda as a police investigation rather than a war and has seen remarkable results, including the death of Osama bin Laden and the decimation of the Taliban leaders. He restored much of the world's trust in the U.S. after Bush pissed most of it off. He supports Israel without automatically rubber-stamping everything the current head of Israel.
That's off the top of my head. And I'm pretty sure just about all of that will be proof to Ron that Obama should be stopped.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And all of that with republicans in congress whose main purpose was to cause the president to fail.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An interesting inside look at the end of the interview on how campaigns digitize voters and hyperfocus their attention on an ever shrinking portion of the electorate.
More evidence on the terrible effects of the EC.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Without forgetting that that isn't mere political supposition of the usual kind, but publicized statements made by Republican leaders in Congress.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
The Fair Tax has been kicking around for years.
The idea is to replace all forms of taxation with a consumption tax, which I think is priced at something like 27% on all goods. Supposedly, the price of goods actually wouldn't change all that much, since corporate tax rates and other tax hits on businesses would actually offset the cost of goods and keep prices stable, but we'd all have a ton more money in our pockets.
On top of that, you get reimbursement checks from the government if you're of a certain income level to cover the tax hit on housing, food and the like, so the tax isn't regressive.
That's the basic gist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
You're going to have to explain to me how asking Americans to use less gas is "deeply evil."
Do tell.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan considers reducing consumption to be an evil act. He's said as much before. His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even if he does believe that, evil would seem to be a dramatic overreach.
And that's not even addressing a host of other issues that are problematic with such a belief, like what to do with interim problems.
Even so, consumption and scarcity aren't even the biggest issues with oil use, it's a strategic concern as well. It's one that presidents have been talking about since at least EISENHOWER. But we haven't done a thing about it, with the possible exception of CAFE standards, in the last 50 years.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
What? Is Tom right in describing your opinion that technology and the ~invisible hand~ of the market will magick us out of scarcity issues? If so I have a 2 hour series to direct you too because this is far from the reality.
It is possible he was reading a broader meaning into 'changing how we live' than simply reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Some, even many of those potential meanings could he considered 'deeply evil'.
That said, if you consider advocating reducing the consumption of fossil fuels to be deeply evil...well. You've got a huge amount of work ahead of you in explaining how reducing the use of a resource that is expensive, scarce, politically problematic to obtain in many cases let's just say, and negatively impacts the environment (and thus human and ecological welfare, with all sorts of unknown long term impacts) in favor of a gradual switch to less scarce, less dirty, less politically dangerous and yes, potentially more expensive means of energy supply...well. A lot of work ahead of you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh's first paragraph is closest to what I meant.
But since Tom brought it up, I can go off on that tangent too!
I'm not specifically saying any advocacy of reduction in fossil fuel use is evil, no. I've repeatedly clarified this, and Tom keeps forgetting it.
The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
------
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
------
Blayne: I'm not interesting in spending 2 hours watching something if it can be at all accurately summed up by those link text titles. "We can only delay the inevitable" is such a wrongheaded sentence it's actually staggering.
Yeah, we can delay the inevitable, through technology. This is a good, not a bad, thing.
For example: All life in our solar system will cease to exist, unless we create sufficient knowledge and technology fast enough to avert it. That's inevitable.
But there are no laws of physics that we know yet that prevent us from delaying this inevitability. In fact, we could even do so indefinitely! But again, only if we have sufficient knowledge.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
This is not true whatsoever and has never held true and has never been true.
Putting in the investment into energy production like nuclear power is more expensive, but this isn't something that causes a 10% difference in a person's standard of living. It is the job of the government to prepare for the forthcoming energy crunch through investment and incentives.
Subsidies into the hydrogen economy for instance, is fungible with non fossil fuel energy's;it's something that can scale to the country as a whole.
What is true, that people can and should be encouraged to drive less, especially in cities and rely on walking, public transportation, bikes and so on. This is incentive and does not constitute "sacrifice"; even 10% less cars on the roads would be huge for reducing emmissions while still allowing people to have good quality of life through other means.
Cars are more of status symbol, if every major American city had a subway transit system as large and comprehensive as new yorks, and light rail that helped connect every american to every part of America the way China currently now is setting up its own light rail infrastructure; there wouldn't be a need for cars as it exists now.
Asking people to drive less, or car pool more, or ride the bus isn't asking them to sacrifice something anymore than making icecream slightly more expensive.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
Me not wanting to watch your video ≠ Me being uninterested in the "other side" of the debate. Nice try, though!
I have no doubt that one day we will no longer use oil or coal. And I'm not opposed to that. What does that have to do with anything? I oppose "scaling back" our use of these products if doing so would have a negative impact on wealth. Right now, it seems like that's the case. Ten or fifty or a hundred years from now, it may not be. Great!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's an abridged video linked above at 40 minutes; there's very little excuse to not watch them, everything I say is largely sourced through those videos.
The fact is we need to scale back now because if we don't the readjustment the western first world will go through will be that much harder, harsher and faster and worse for everyone involved.
By scaling back on fossil fuels you reduce greenhouse gas emissions (something that the United States and much of the world successfully worked together on to ban aresols that damaged the ozone layer), you make it more economically viable for alternatives such as nuclear power and cause significantly less environmental pollution. If done smartly, through incentives such as taxation to discourage the use of fossil fuels and reckless consumption of energy you can direct those revenues towards the investment; either in R&D of new sources of alternate energy or substitute industrial materials. Or into the next generation of energy infrastructure for a hydrogen or nuclear economy.
Scaling back on fossil fuels by scaling back on the usage of automotive transit is the easiest means of accomplishing this, with the least amount of pain and suffering and won't affect growth with sufficient investment in other sectors.
A New Deal styled jobs plan, to get millions into work to rebuild America's infrastructure, and upconverter it for more energy efficient alternatives and renewables would be a massive improvement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, Blayne, it just sounds worse and worse the more detailed you get.
You even managed to throw in "New Deal style" at the end there! It's like you're trying to make me never watch this thing! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
We've allowed ourselves to be held hostage by price shocks to the global supply of oil, and to international affairs. We've also allowed it to dominate our foreign policy, costing us yet more untold billions of dollars.
If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
Biofuels have come an incredibly long way in a short period of time, and they're carbon neutral in addition to being totally domestically produced. We're really not that far away from being able to grow our own fuel without sacrificing food stocks to do it.
The bitch of it is, the axe HAS fallen the hardest on the poor, but not necessarily because of high gas prices. Prices have spiked most precipitously because we've done nothing for years to prepare the country for these price shocks. And as we tighten our belts, public services like mass transit services, used overwhelmingly by the poor, also take major hits. These are services we would have invested in more if we needed alternatives to cars, but we don't, so they suffer even more.
You're only looking at an incredibly narrow set of criteria and thus are producing a very narrow hypothesis for what you think people are advocating and what would happen as a result.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
I don't!
That you think I do means there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Sorry about that!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So like, three questions.
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
quote:"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
2. Why is consumption in quotes
quote:We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
3. Should policy be predicated on the idea that (a) we can always count on science to science away our shortages, or (b) that it is entirely possible to catastrophically overconsume or overuse available resources in a way which causes disaster later
Like for instance, what's going to replace cheap phosphorous that is going to prevent the Green Revolution from collapsing into a larger famine once India once again filled to capacity via consumption?
Or, erm, "consumption."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote:You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
Here's the thing though, we already HAVE sunk a lot of money down a hole. We've spent billions on tax breaks and giveaways, on foreign "aid" to dictators, on wars, on subsidies to drivers, and more, over the last couple decades.
In just the last four years, we've spent a good chunk on renewables and biofuels, and it's already made huge advances. Imagine if we had done this a long time ago when the need wasn't quite so urgent. We could have spent less and had the time to let it develop slowly and cheaply. Now we don't have the time and we have to pay more. People were making the arguments for it back then. People making your argument stopped them.
quote:But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
This presupposes, bizarrely, that people don't suffer under your system (i.e., what we already do now). I find that a puzzling idea. Prices have spiked in the last decade due to inaction in the public and private sector. The problem is, the free market doesn't care about people, it cares about, as you say, wealth creation, but not for specific peoples, just on the whole. So if all those profits go to a few people, the free market is perfectly happy. Corporations don't exist to create a stable energy market, they don't exist to ensure price stability for consumers, they exist to make money. With prices for commodities spiking, they can corner the market on an absolutely necessary fuel source and reap huge profits from consumers. And that's what's happened.
So, where in that scenario is the free market protecting people in a way that makes it better for people than if government tried to plan ahead?
I'm not sure if I understand what your idea of "sacrifice" is. Maybe that's another fundamental misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that in a contest of our two theories, yours has no sacrifice, and mine is unreasonably painful. Is that accurate?
quote:I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.
You'll have to explain the importance of the distinction.
You'll also have to explain why you think individuals should be in charge of national energy policy. But I think I know what you'll say on that one.
I'm also not sure what you mean by force. Circumstances have dictated changes in the past, but they usually force them in painful ways that hit the poor (who you brought up) far worse than other segments of society.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So like, three questions.
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
Why is human sacrifice in quotes?
I don't know if energy saving windows involve a real human sacrifice. Don't they save money in the long term? I don't know much about them, honestly. Assuming they do, that might make them a valuable upfront expenditure of energy in exchange for a long-term payoff. So, no more human sacrifice than getting an IRA or something.
Now, I might still have an issue with forcing people to get them. Why not let the people who think they're worth it get 'em, and everyone else do what they want? That holds true whether we're talking about IRAs or windows, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
2. Why is consumption in quotes
I was quoting!
Also, to scare you.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
3. Should policy be predicated on the idea that (a) we can always count on science to science away our shortages, or (b) that it is entirely possible to catastrophically overconsume or overuse available resources in a way which causes disaster later
Like for instance, what's going to replace cheap phosphorous that is going to prevent the Green Revolution from collapsing into a larger famine once India once again filled to capacity via consumption?
Or, erm, "consumption."
(a) is closer, but still off.
Problems are inevitable, but they can be solved.
And progress helps solve problems. Technological progress, specifically, has solved countless problems in almost every aspect of our lives. And it keeps solving problems, too.
Also, technological progress takes wealth.
So when we talk about solving problems, and the proposed solution involves giving up current optimal technologies and forcing people to spend a lot of wealth, this has consequences. This is, in several ways, slowing down technological progress.
So the call is to solve a current problem now, but curbing our ability to solve problems in the future.
This is a terrible approach to problem solving.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Now, I might still have an issue with forcing people to get them. Why not let the people who think they're worth it get 'em, and everyone else do what they want? That holds true whether we're talking about IRAs or windows, of course.
Why? Both government and private companies compel us to do things all the time. At least this one is actually good for you and the nation as a whole.
quote:So when we talk about solving problems, and the proposed solution involves giving up current optimal technologies and forcing people to spend a lot of wealth, this has consequences. This is, in several ways, slowing down technological progress.
This only works if you ignore the benefits of forced changes.
Example:
New rules on mercury emissions for coal fired power plants cost money and jobs right? So they're bad, right?
But they save billions of dollars in medical costs because mercury emissions cost the healthcare industry billions and creates long lasting chronic diseases, like asthma in children.
Also, the new jobs and wealth created by the filtration systems necessary to retrofit old plants more than offsets the wealth and jobs lost to the old school technology.
So what's the problem with it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
quote:You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
Here's the thing though, we already HAVE sunk a lot of money down a hole. We've spent billions on tax breaks and giveaways, on foreign "aid" to dictators, on wars, on subsidies to drivers, and more, over the last couple decades.
That's a good point. The problem is definitely much deeper than what we've been talking about so far. You can probably guess that I'm not specifically in favor of oil subsidies, or other government policies put in place to try to force down the price of gas. If you weren't sure, well, there you go. Now I'm on the record.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In just the last four years, we've spent a good chunk on renewables and biofuels, and it's already made huge advances. Imagine if we had done this a long time ago when the need wasn't quite so urgent. We could have spent less and had the time to let it develop slowly and cheaply. Now we don't have the time and we have to pay more. People were making the arguments for it back then. People making your argument stopped them.
Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
This presupposes, bizarrely, that people don't suffer under your system (i.e., what we already do now). I find that a puzzling idea. Prices have spiked in the last decade due to inaction in the public and private sector. The problem is, the free market doesn't care about people, it cares about, as you say, wealth creation, but not for specific peoples, just on the whole. So if all those profits go to a few people, the free market is perfectly happy. Corporations don't exist to create a stable energy market, they don't exist to ensure price stability for consumers, they exist to make money. With prices for commodities spiking, they can corner the market on an absolutely necessary fuel source and reap huge profits from consumers. And that's what's happened.
"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, where in that scenario is the free market protecting people in a way that makes it better for people than if government tried to plan ahead?
I'm not sure if I understand what your idea of "sacrifice" is. Maybe that's another fundamental misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that in a contest of our two theories, yours has no sacrifice, and mine is unreasonably painful. Is that accurate?
In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money. And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.
You'll have to explain the importance of the distinction.
When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You'll also have to explain why you think individuals should be in charge of national energy policy. But I think I know what you'll say on that one.
Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm also not sure what you mean by force. Circumstances have dictated changes in the past, but they usually force them in painful ways that hit the poor (who you brought up) far worse than other segments of society.
Force is a word with multiple meanings.
I don't mean "force" in the sense of F = ma
I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
I believe Europe has something closer to this model, where the majority of revenue is generated by VAT taxes, although they still have significant income taxes as well. They haven't gone to the effort of making it significantly progressive, however; their tax systems generally a quite a bit more regressive than ours. I imagine the way to go about making a progressive consumption tax would be to vary the rate depending on the demographic group primarily purchasing the good, so yachts have a high VAT rate and instant noodles have a low VAT rate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
Republicans and fossil fuel executives in the 70s and the 80s. You aren't those people, but you both represent the same underlying argument. They were wrong then. I think you're wrong now. There's nothing malicious about the comparison, so I'm not sure what you took offense to specifically.
quote:"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
The system you describe is a lot closer to what we've done, historically, than mine. I respect that you don't want the government propping up the status quo any more than you want them propping up an alternative, but I have bigger picture interests in mind.
quote:Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
It's not that weird. It emphasizes the point that there's nothing inherently good or evil about the market. The free market has no defining virtues that make it positive or negative. It is only what we put into it. I think you'd agree with that, yes?
The problem is, people are greedy, and they use the free market system to create massive disparities within society and to create political power disparities as well. So while the market itself is neither good nor evil, the people who use it as a vehicle for amassing wealth are the ones who don't care what happens to everyone else. The effect is still the same.
quote:In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
Wait, you're suggesting yours is win/win and mine is win/lose? Generously defined, I'd say they both have the potential to be win/lose, but neither is automatically win/win, so long as we're using this binary.
quote:When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
That's about the least efficient system I've ever heard of. Who in their right mind would design a system where you use something until it runs out without planning for an alternative ahead of time? I suppose the answer to that question is; America, but that proves all the more so why people can make individually stupid short term decisions that aren't in their best long term or the national long term interests.
And if oil runs out but they preferred to choose oil, they didn't CHOOSE to stop using oil. The choice was removed. Removing choice is a form of force.
quote:Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
Individuals living in a society, not in the wild on the plains of the Serengeti. I get your argument, I just think it's silly, for the same reason I think a similar approach to health care is silly. You create a more efficient system when you plan ahead a system that works best and cheapest for everyone. The individualist approach is often more expensive and provides worse outcomes. That applies, at the very least, to energy and health care.
quote:I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know
Well, I disagree with your example as it would seem to apply. I understand why that distinction would be incredibly valuable to your philosophy, but it strikes me as semantic difference rather than a substantive one. Either way I think it fails a test. Companies force people to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. But it's only when the government forces you to do something that people tend to get up in arms about it.
ETA: Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me. You're one of my favorite people to discuss things with.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the electoral college: I said I wasn't going to wade in, but just for fun I calculated how much a candidate could win the popular vote by and still lose the electoral college. I assumed that each state's voting population share was the same as its overall population share*.
Essentially the way to do this is to assume the candidate wins all the votes in the big population states, but loses just over 50% in the small population states. I didn't solve the problem exactly, because it ends up as a knapsack problem, but I used the heuristic of descending population share until I couldn't pack any more and then chose the next largest state that would keep you under the threshold. This will give a lower bound, and the lower bound should be pretty close to the actual answer.
Anyway, if a candidate won all the votes in: CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, GA, NC, and VA, and won 49.9% of the votes in all the rest of the states, then she would have received appr. 80% of the votes, but would have only tied in the electoral college. Assuming the House is held by the other party, she could thus lose the Presidency despite garnering 4/5 of total popular support.
* If you assume that there is no significant voting population in the small population states (like only one guy shows up and votes in each of the small states) you essentially end up with the loser getting 100% of the popular vote, which is a trivial finding.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the total popular vote.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the total popular vote.
Right. That's what I just said (along with the analysis of how you can win the Electoral College with only 20% of the vote).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second. This part may have passed me by, but your concern that we might have thrown money away if we did what Lyr suggested doesn't wash when you factor in that that-spending a lot of time and resources on finding new energy sources-is effectively your long-term plan *anyway*.
Except with what he advocated, using government regulation as a tool we would've geared our economy towards a gradual, incremental buildup of those resources *and* slowly increased the incentive to do so.
So if your concern about throwing money away is valid, under your 'wait and see and delay' plan, we would desperately throw that money away when we were much closer to an end of fossil fuel supplies.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Though it's not likely to matter much in the grand scheme of things, the Green and Libertarian candidates had a debate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Parties whose very existence are damaging to the political system through the spoiler effect are so adorable.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Who made my argument, exactly? I'm not those people, right? That's just a rhetorical flourish to score points off of me. It works, as far as it goes, but it's not really saying anything substantive. It's beneath you.
Republicans and fossil fuel executives in the 70s and the 80s. You aren't those people, but you both represent the same underlying argument. They were wrong then. I think you're wrong now. There's nothing malicious about the comparison, so I'm not sure what you took offense to specifically.
I wasn't offended at all, actually. But I can see how my comment could be construed that way.
I was just trying to point out that it's not a relevant or substantive comment. And considering that we're still working on understanding each other's arguments, I think it's premature to say that I have the same argument as X person 30 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:"My system" is certainly not what we do now. I'm just arguing that changing what we do in the ways you (or Jimmy Carter, I guess?) want isn't actually a good idea.
The system you describe is a lot closer to what we've done, historically, than mine. I respect that you don't want the government propping up the status quo any more than you want them propping up an alternative, but I have bigger picture interests in mind.
Heh.
They don't seem bigger to me, but let's keep going.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Anthropomorphizing markets is weird. Anyway, companies exist to make money by selling people stuff that they want more than they want what they're trading for it. A free market is just a (nonhuman) system in which two parties can create wealth by exchanging that stuff.
It's not that weird. It emphasizes the point that there's nothing inherently good or evil about the market. The free market has no defining virtues that make it positive or negative. It is only what we put into it. I think you'd agree with that, yes?
Eh... sort of? The market doesn't have a reasoning mind, so it's silly to ascribe motive to it. So in that sense it's not good or evil, in the way that I could be good or evil.
But, taken as a system for trade and cooperation between individuals, it can be considered good or evil the same way that a rival system (say, communism) could be, or the same way that some other abstract system of interaction (say, murder) could be.
In this context, good and evil don't represent a morality system we're ascribing to a non-reasoning concept. Good and evil represent value judgments we are placing on the systems in question.
In that context of "good and evil," I would say that a free market is good. Not evil, and not amoral, but actively good.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The problem is, people are greedy, and they use the free market system to create massive disparities within society and to create political power disparities as well. So while the market itself is neither good nor evil, the people who use it as a vehicle for amassing wealth are the ones who don't care what happens to everyone else. The effect is still the same.
You're implying that a "disparity" is a bad thing (bad in the context above). I don't get that. It's like the whole "income inequality" stuff going on lately.
I don't think there's anything inherently bad about income inequality. If anything, income inequality (between free citizens) indicates a society where there is less oppression and more opportunity for outliers and individual success. Lots of really horrific and oppressive societies, past and present, had great income equality.
I don't understand the income inequality bogeyman.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:In context here, "our two theories" doesn't refer to specifics of energy policy. It refers to a broad approach to problem solving and economics. Win/Win, or Win/Lose.
Wait, you're suggesting yours is win/win and mine is win/lose? Generously defined, I'd say they both have the potential to be win/lose, but neither is automatically win/win, so long as we're using this binary.
quote:When people are persuaded that X alternate energy source is a better option, they'll take it. If they aren't persuaded, I don't think we should force them.
If the broad context changes (say, we run out of oil) and they change their mind because of that, it's perverse to call that "force." They changed their mind.
That's about the least efficient system I've ever heard of. Who in their right mind would design a system where you use something until it runs out without planning for an alternative ahead of time?
I used that as an obvious example. I don't think that's the likely outcome.
Rockefeller didn't rest on his laurels after he made light cheaply available to everyone, extended the country's usable hours by orders of magnitude, and drove the price of kerosene down to the lowest it had ever been. He spent money figuring out other uses for oil, because he wanted to be ready for the next thing.
Oil companies sink huge quantities of cash into R&D for a reason. When it's more profitable to frack or to build wind turbines or nuclear plants or whatever, they'll do that! Unless the government is incentivizing them not to, I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I suppose the answer to that question is; America, but that proves all the more so why people can make individually stupid short term decisions that aren't in their best long term or the national long term interests.
And if oil runs out but they preferred to choose oil, they didn't CHOOSE to stop using oil. The choice was removed. Removing choice is a form of force.
A person forcing someone not to take a choice they would otherwise be able to take... is force.
Someone simply not having, or no longer having, the option they like... is not force.
Are you forced to be unable to see live dinosaurs? No. That you can't see them is a simple scientific fact, and if you feel forced by it, that's a conflict caused in your mind. It's a conflict you can resolve by thinking more rationally about the world and not wanting the impossible. Literally no one is forcing you not to see live dinosaurs, just as no one is forcing you not to travel at the speed of light.
Again, this is why I said calling those circumstances "force" is perverse.
If someone says "You can't produce more oil," and enforces it, then that is force.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Yeah, I've typed enough, and I suspect you've got the gist of it. Short answer: We're individuals.
Individuals living in a society, not in the wild on the plains of the Serengeti. I get your argument, I just think it's silly, for the same reason I think a similar approach to health care is silly. You create a more efficient system when you plan ahead a system that works best and cheapest for everyone. The individualist approach is often more expensive and provides worse outcomes. That applies, at the very least, to energy and health care.
[/QUOTE] Worse outcomes for who? In what context?
The problem with this attitude is that you're just pivoting to avoid the individualist position. You're saying "people are collectively better this way," which, even if factually true (and I'm not conceding that right now), avoids the actual crux of the difference.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't mean "force" in the sense of responsibility denial, where we describe our choices as being forced. "Taco Bell was closed so I was forced to go to McDonald's."
I mean "force" as in one or more external reasoning beings are forcing you to do what they want you do instead of what you would prefer to do.
Some people have a hard time distinguishing between the second and third types. If you want to go down that rabbit hole with me, let me know
Well, I disagree with your example as it would seem to apply. I understand why that distinction would be incredibly valuable to your philosophy, but it strikes me as semantic difference rather than a substantive one.
I don't think it is. See my earlier explanation. The difference is relevant, and has consequences.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either way I think it fails a test. Companies force people to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. But it's only when the government forces you to do something that people tend to get up in arms about it.
This is an interesting claim. For argument's sake, could you give me a concrete example we could look at?
I think it will get back to the distinction between actual force, and responsibility denial that uses the idea of "force" as a shield.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ETA: Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me. You're one of my favorite people to discuss things with. [/QB]
Thanks! Back at you!
Well, you and Destineer. He's a lot of fun too, but he's less prolific than you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second. This part may have passed me by, but your concern that we might have thrown money away if we did what Lyr suggested doesn't wash when you factor in that that-spending a lot of time and resources on finding new energy sources-is effectively your long-term plan *anyway*.
Except with what he advocated, using government regulation as a tool we would've geared our economy towards a gradual, incremental buildup of those resources *and* slowly increased the incentive to do so.
So if your concern about throwing money away is valid, under your 'wait and see and delay' plan, we would desperately throw that money away when we were much closer to an end of fossil fuel supplies.
Oh man, Rakeesh. Using words like "gradual, incremental buildup" in regards to technological progress! Are you trying to turn me on?
If we take spending government money developing energy tech is a given (which I don't), then my objections to that tech being "Green" are smaller. Mostly just surrounding the fact that too much of the Green movement is so deeply wrongheaded and ass backwards, so I'm reluctant to trust 'em with actually making good progress.
But there are some promising exceptions that Lyr has mentioned.
My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Technological progress isn't a game of Civilization dan, you need a *lot* of government investment to get anywhere. The average % of government spending invested into R&D for the average G20 nation is something around 20% to 30% of government spending, including the United States. This includes deployment of technologies, something that is very expensive to do all at once, such as adopting the metric system; something the United States couldn't do because of its costs from a "all at once" approach.
It is *not* preferable to do what's needed to do by profit, especially not in all cases. Green technology and renewables would not be anywhere near where it is today in the United States without significant government subsidies, and the USA would be significantly behind China, and the European Union who have been putting the money where their mouths are.
The United States only has its technological lead that it can be argued to possess, from significant government investment and R&D; this is fact.
We're not talking about the "Green" political movement, they're irrelevant for this discussion. What's relevant is accepting that government has a crucial role in enabling the development, discovery and implementation of new technologies that better society, always have, and always will.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Parties whose very existence are damaging to the political system through the spoiler effect are so adorable.
Could you elaborate on what you mean here Blayne?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Spoiler Effect, if you have had say, for 60 years the Pirate Party and the Ninja Party exchanging power back and forth for the entire time and then Samurai decides to enter the race thinking everyone is tired of the "same old" parties;
What happens is that there is a portion of Ninja voters who prefer Samurai over Ninja, but really don't like Pirate; so what happens is that they punish their own interests by voting for Samurai, and suppose he manages to snipe away 9% of Ninja's voters in a close election it means he hands the victory over to Pirate; even though a majority of the people did not vote for Pirate.
So third party's in a FPTP system like the United States mathematically trend towards two party systems because any and all votes for a third party hands the election over to the party whose platform you do not support; forcing you to strategically vote.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
From a technical perspective, that debate was a nightmare.
There were constant audio and connection problems.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
What about when-as with consumption of fossil fuels-those people demonstrate a huge unwillingness to actually work towards that kind of progress? People actually *say* they want to work towards such profess regularly. Does government have no responsibility to see a looming crisis and act?
Also, I do take issue as others have with the notion-which I'm not quite sure you hold to-that sacrifice is somehow inherently evil. It would be a sacrifice to compel through insurance or code that their home has a decent smoke alarm system, but only if you look at it from a certain POV.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dan, was it evil for FDR's Administration to mandate Americans sacrifice in order to win the war? I also point out corporate and income taxes were as high as 90%.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would've thought the best argument for a gas tax is that gas has huge externalities that need to be priced in so the market can achieve efficiency.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people.
Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's also not a very good intersection between the poorest and people on minimum wage.
quote:Even under the assumption that there are no employment effects, "only 10.66 percent of total [minimum] wage increases accrue to workers belonging to poor households." Given that 10.3% of households are in poverty, increasing the minimum wage is only slightly more effective as an anti-poverty measure as would be distributing money at random across households.
quote:My problem with it is that I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. It's preferable for people to make gradual and incremental progress using their own money and their own goals and their own research, based on what looks profitable.
But America is a country, not a business. What you're describing can be an incredibly messy, costly, and possibly dangerous process. It would be one thing if we're talking about, say, the cell phone market. The government has no vested interest in telling people what kind of cell phone they should buy. It might have an interest in forcing people to pay a tax to support 911 service, but not telling them they have to buy a smart phone instead of an old flip phone. So if that market works itself out messily or whatever, it's no big deal because we're essentially talking about luxury items.
But the national energy market isn't a luxury item. It's the life blood of the entire nation. Financiers on Wall Street crashed the entire economy while trying to maximize profits, and they did so at incredible expense (and via massive destruction of wealth) to the American people. So I think it's silly to say that government has no role in protecting the nation from looming problems. I fundamentally believe that the government has a role, a duty in setting national energy policy to decide five, ten, twenty years out that our current consumption of fossil fuels, even if you leave out all the global warming stuff, represents a clear and present danger to the long term viability of the nation, and can seek ways to guide the nation toward better alternatives. Getting America off of oil will take decades, probably generations. And that's if we start now. If we wait a couple decades until we have to, because oil ran out or becomes prohibitively expensive, and THAT is the moment we start exploring alternatives, man, we've already lost. You don't just shift a national economy and way of life from oil to something else by snapping your fingers, not without huge, huge problems.
I simply want to avoid those problems by planning ahead.
quote:Eh... sort of? The market doesn't have a reasoning mind, so it's silly to ascribe motive to it. So in that sense it's not good or evil, in the way that I could be good or evil.
But, taken as a system for trade and cooperation between individuals, it can be considered good or evil the same way that a rival system (say, communism) could be, or the same way that some other abstract system of interaction (say, murder) could be.
In this context, good and evil don't represent a morality system we're ascribing to a non-reasoning concept. Good and evil represent value judgments we are placing on the systems in question.
In that context of "good and evil," I would say that a free market is good. Not evil, and not amoral, but actively good.
You'll need to elaborate further and explain why. I'm not sure I get the connection between murder and the free market system. Well, you wouldn't like the connection I would make using those two things. What is the difference, to you, between "morality" and "value judgments"?
quote:You're implying that a "disparity" is a bad thing (bad in the context above). I don't get that. It's like the whole "income inequality" stuff going on lately.
I don't think there's anything inherently bad about income inequality. If anything, income inequality (between free citizens) indicates a society where there is less oppression and more opportunity for outliers and individual success. Lots of really horrific and oppressive societies, past and present, had great income equality.
I don't understand the income inequality bogeyman.
Because as the money amasses into fewer and fewer hands and leaves people behind, all sorts of problems are left in the wake. Money equals power, especially so in our society. More money in fewer hands slowly turns the nation into an oligarchy with a thin veneer of democracy on top. By the way, I think ever since Citizens United, we're pretty much at that point anyway, but that's another discussion. It means less access to education, job training, etc etc. We tried it once, during the Gilded Age, and the country was a mess. Lots of people defending that time period like to point to the immense wealth created, but they ignore the fact that that wealth largely went to a very small minority of the super wealthy and a tiny middle class. Most workers weren't so jazzed at their living conditions.
And there are other concerns. Stagnant wages and wealth accumulation at the top is bad for our long term viability when what, 80% of the economy is based on consumer spending? How do you keep that engine going if people don't have any money to spend? Keeping dollars moving and keeping them in the hands of the masses is what our economy is based on in recent years. That system is currently broken because the people themselves are broke. The majority of the recovery in recent years involved wealth creation at the top, which hasn't done much to spur growth nationally.
So I believe for reasons of basic fairness, equality, and for economic reasons, income inequality leads to a worse off nation.
I also think your 'income inequality means we're a freer society' is highly questionable, if not outright farcical. Such a statement depends entirely on how you view oppression and opportunity. I think we have very, very different views on that, in part because I think you underplay the role that income inequality has on limiting opportunity.
quote:Oil companies sink huge quantities of cash into R&D for a reason. When it's more profitable to frack or to build wind turbines or nuclear plants or whatever, they'll do that! Unless the government is incentivizing them not to, I suppose.
Ah, and there's part of the crux of it. When it's more profitable for them. But that assumes that the costs incurred by the energy company alone are the ones borne by society. That's incredibly, demonstrably false. And that's one of the reasons why government has a role to play, because government can visualize the cost to society as a whole, not just in a single industry, and can try to find best fit solutions that make the nation more efficient and cost effective as a whole. Exxon-Mobil has no such interest. I don't think that makes Exxon-Mobil evil, I just think that's a shortcoming of allowing a country to be run by corporations under the rubric of the free market system. It doesn't produce outcomes that are great for society as a whole unless tamed and guided by an external governing force.
Furthermore, it's incredibly inefficient. They might keep spending more and more money trying to find ways to get more oil out of the ground (and that's the vast majority of what they do), but it would be better for the country if that money was spent on another form of fuel entirely. Because they can maximize profits, with the price of oil so very, very high.
I think maybe we're getting bogged down here a bit in conflating a couple things too. There are energy consumers and energy producers. Oil companies are not energy consumers, they are producers. GE is not an energy consumer, it's an energy producer by creating wind turbines. Oil companies have no vested interest in hoping the price of anything goes down. They have a stranglehold on oil because the world runs on it. As far as they are concerned, the price can go up as high as can be borne and they'll simply reap the profits.
Government can look ahead to these sorts of price shocks and add some stability to the long term viability to the energy market. I don't care if the market wants to sort itself out messily when it's something like video games at stake. But when it's longterm national energy policy? There's a vested interest in not just leaving it to multinational conglomerates out to make a buck. There are other concerns at play.
quote:The problem with this attitude is that you're just pivoting to avoid the individualist position. You're saying "people are collectively better this way," which, even if factually true (and I'm not conceding that right now), avoids the actual crux of the difference.
Say more about this. What's the crux of the difference?
quote:This is an interesting claim. For argument's sake, could you give me a concrete example we could look at?
I think it will get back to the distinction between actual force, and responsibility denial that uses the idea of "force" as a shield.
Off the top of my head?
I'm forced to buy bundled cable when I'd really prefer to only watch a couple channels. The cable company is forcing me to subsidize a bunch of failing channels that would otherwise not exist if they had to survive on their own.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can someone rename this the "dan's technological singularity will solve all problems eventually so it is evil to keep society from consuming as much as they want or whatever" thread and make a new election/debate thread or something
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll re-rail the thread when something happens.
But regardless, I suspect we'll be done pretty soon.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people.
Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else.
Mucus: Yeah, I'm aware that minimum wage doesn't do what it's supposed to. In fact, the very poorest and unskilled members of a given society are generally the people that get screwed the hardest by minimum wage laws. That being said, I was pretending the minimum wage functions as intended in an attempt to keep the example simple. I didn't want start that derail/argument too.
And I just noticed Sam's complaint. Sorry for the derail.
Lyr: I have a partially complete response to you. Should we start a new thread or something? Or do you expect we'll be done soon enough that it's okay? Oh, I just checked and this is your thread, heh.
Well, I'm going to get some sleep. I'll finish my post tomorrow.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else.
Do you seriously not understand the problem with your math, or are you just being cute?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Amanda Palmer is awesome. Did you know that Ian Fleming (and James Bond himself) loved scrambled eggs? There's a great recipe somewhere.
Who needs love when there's Southern Comfort?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Do the exact numbers really matter here?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Corrected in what way? Because from where I sit, she was wrong on the facts, and if Axelrod fed her the fact then he's wrong as well (or, you know, spinning).
The President referred generally to 'acts of terror' in his Rose Garden speech, but not specifically to the Benghazi attack as being an act of terror. He then spent two weeks steadfastly refusing to refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, even when pushed on the issue by reporters, even after other elements within the White House and State were doing so. The President was very cautious about the application of the specific term to the specific case (and rightfully so, I would say). To assume that the general comment about "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech was referring specifically to Benghazi requires that you ignore the following two weeks of careful evasion of the issue by the President.
I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.
"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."
Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Do the exact numbers really matter here?
It's not a question of exact -- the 10% is arbitrary, as far as I can tell. It's the notion that it's the same percentage of everything (which makes no sense at all) that I am objecting to.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.
"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."
Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.
I was aware of the Letterman quote when I made the comment, and of all the Administration's many statements about the attack it comes the closest (other than perhaps the Rose Garden comments) to saying it was a terrorist attack. But I don't think it does, for a few reasons: (1) he couples 'extremists' with 'terrorists', providing plenty of semantic wiggle room, (2) terrorists can attack without it being a 'terrorist attack'; the coupling of the two connotes a coordinated, planned effort, usually by a group, rather than the possibility of an uncoordinated action by people who happen to be extremists or terrorists, and (3) the setting was very informal; if the President were truly going to make a significant foreign policy statement (which I believe labeling the attack a terrorist attack would have been, again because of the connotation that the attack was coordinated and directed by a terrorist organization) it seems more likely he would have done it through his spokesman, or in person during a news conference, rather than during a stop on a late night talk show.
I don't think any of this was wrong. I think the President should be cautious about making assertions about events, particularly assertions that would lead to possible strikes against organizations in a fragile country trying to rebuild from a civil war. The real question, to my mind, is why the intelligence process worked at the rate it did. It took a couple of weeks before the news broke that there was no Cairo-like protest at all. Why did the Administration think there was, and why did it take so long for them to correct that misperception? I believe President Obama was (probably) accurately reflecting the state of knowledge at the time. My concern is that it seems to have taken what I would consider an inordinate amount of time for a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what occurred to be corrected, and when it was there was no information given about why it took so long.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Rivka, if energy costs go up 10%, why the cost to the poor of buying gas and running the AC in their big homes goes up 10%, and the cost of everything will also go up 10% because that is the only cost in producing everything.....That $1.00 Big Mac will cost $1.10 because the cost of frying it, and delivering the beef, and even growing the beef will...um...
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I actually don't care at all about the derail even if it is getting kind of into la-la land, i just am amazed how little the debate is actually being talked about
except i shouldn't be, because besides the "binders full of women" comment it was just more of the same, sure as death and taxes, it was just an exercise in talking-pointing around the moderator's questions. "That's an excellent question! Now, to preface my not actually answering the question, an inspiring anecdote prior to talking about what my opponent won't do or did wrong which has nothing to do with an actual response"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I win this argument:
Why don't you post your response to me in a new thread. It'll really only last as long as either of us has the patience to respond, but we should try to get this thread back to the election.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Actually, I'm not really sure. It might be more relevant to the election. But it's probably less relevant to this thread. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Prices are elastic, a 10% increase in fuel costs may not automatically mean everything goes up 10%. Especially since fuels tend to be subsidized for lower income earners.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure what you mean by weeks of careful evasion. Last night, David Letterman reran the show from September 18 where he interviewed President Obama. It was clear from what the President said then that he considered the attack in Benghazi to be an attack by terrorists.
"You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who is an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offense in much of the much of the Muslim world. But what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies."
Pretty sure that labels it as a terrorist attack.
I was aware of the Letterman quote when I made the comment, and of all the Administration's many statements about the attack it comes the closest (other than perhaps the Rose Garden comments) to saying it was a terrorist attack. But I don't think it does, for a few reasons: (1) he couples 'extremists' with 'terrorists', providing plenty of semantic wiggle room, (2) terrorists can attack without it being a 'terrorist attack'; the coupling of the two connotes a coordinated, planned effort, usually by a group, rather than the possibility of an uncoordinated action by people who happen to be extremists or terrorists, and (3) the setting was very informal; if the President were truly going to make a significant foreign policy statement (which I believe labeling the attack a terrorist attack would have been, again because of the connotation that the attack was coordinated and directed by a terrorist organization) it seems more likely he would have done it through his spokesman, or in person during a news conference, rather than during a stop on a late night talk show.
I don't think any of this was wrong. I think the President should be cautious about making assertions about events, particularly assertions that would lead to possible strikes against organizations in a fragile country trying to rebuild from a civil war. The real question, to my mind, is why the intelligence process worked at the rate it did. It took a couple of weeks before the news broke that there was no Cairo-like protest at all. Why did the Administration think there was, and why did it take so long for them to correct that misperception? I believe President Obama was (probably) accurately reflecting the state of knowledge at the time. My concern is that it seems to have taken what I would consider an inordinate amount of time for a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what occurred to be corrected, and when it was there was no information given about why it took so long.
That is reasonable. I am not experienced enough to know what is involved in the kind of investigation they are doing. I certainly don't believe that the President or the people doing the investigation have done anything so deliberately wrong or deceitful as to deserve the attacks they have been getting over this. It is difficult to see Gov. Romney's action as legitimate criticism rather than a purely political "gotcha" attempt. This is especially true given his hasty first response and the remarks I posted.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Only if the poor spend 100% of their income on said energy source.
Well, right. Energy costs effect almost every good and service in the economy. It's quite literally what fuels everything else.
Do you seriously not understand the problem with your math, or are you just being cute?
Well, I would hope that whether I understand or not you would still think I'm cute.
But I may not be understanding your objection, no. Sorry. I mean, it's not going to map perfectly, of course, and some sectors will be more effected than others. But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.
Was your point that increasing the cost of energy wouldn't map to a uniform commensurate increase in prices everywhere? Sure, I'll concede that. Especially in the short term. A lot of those fluctuations just get absorbed, if they don't look long-term.
So realistically, in the short term, a 10% increase in energy cost could easily reflect as a <%10 increase in costs for a consumer.
I did that notation right, right? Less than? Yeah, that looks right.
Edit: Shig said I did it wrong, and google agrees. < is less than and > is greater than. Oops!
[ October 19, 2012, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Just popping in with some math pedantry that isn't that relevant: a 10% decrease is not the equal and opposite of a 10% increase. It's very close in this case, but it's not exactly the same. (Consider what happens at larger percentages: what's worse, a 100% pay cut or a 100% price increase?)
Right! Math pedantry over. Carry on!
Edit to add: The Math Pedant says that less than is actually "<", Dan. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.
You really, really missed Darth's point.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Just popping in with some math pedantry that isn't that relevant: a 10% decrease is not the equal and opposite of a 10% increase. It's very close in this case, but it's not exactly the same. (Consider what happens at larger percentages: what's worse, a 100% pay cut or a 100% price increase?)
Right! Math pedantry over. Carry on!
Edit to add: The Math Pedant says that less than is actually "<", Dan.
But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number!
(And yeah, your other point is well taken, good distinction.)
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But, as Darth_Mauve put it when he was trying to be satirical, energy costs certainly effect McDonald's in regard to their frying, delivering, and yes, even growing the beef for their Big Macs.
You really, really missed Darth's point.
Apparently! Well, if you understood it, maybe you could clarify for me. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
modifying my other post, now rename thread to "an extremely ungodly basic lesson in goods elasticity and the price elasticity of demand, election talk GTFO"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Insults and hostility don't actually work on me, Sam. But if you'd like me to stop derailing the thread, say that, instead of sniping and then immediately retreating as soon as I address you directly.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number!
It does. X < %10 reads "X is less than 10%." Because 10% is the bigger number.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But in school they told me the alligator eats the bigger number!
It does. X < %10 reads "X is less than 10%." Because 10% is the bigger number.
Yep, google already clued me in to my mistake. I've gotten them mixed up for twenty years, and somehow I suspect this won't be the last time. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama was on The Daily Show last night and is not getting hammered for calling the Benghazi deaths not "optimal."
It was a fairly run of the mill interview. Stewart tried to get him to expand a bit on some things, but he mostly gave a somewhat less formal version of his stump speech, though he did admit outright that he had an "off night" at the debate. One wonders how he could do such a decent job nutshelling the positives of his administration to Stewart in about 10 min, but such a terrible job of it at so many other venues.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Eh, I have to think about it for a moment sometimes, too. It's not the most intuitive thing ever. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I created the Election Thread Annex for people to post non-election stuff from this thread in, in attempt to re-rail this thread to the election.
If people don't mind, please move non-election stuff over there.
Thanks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Insults and hostility don't actually work on me, Sam. But if you'd like me to stop derailing the thread, say that, instead of sniping and then immediately retreating as soon as I address you directly.
in the future, remember: (1) asking you three straightforward questions is not 'sniping,' (2) reading the answers and understanding that your mode of engagement is best left to others — and the answers were mostly satisfactory for my curiosity anyway — is not 'retreating.'
additionally (3) know what I am doing now from actual insults and hostility, and it will serve you well
I'm just completely amused with how much derail-power has been exerted on this thread.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'll keep it brief because I want to respect Lyr's decision to try to re-rail the thread, but just to clarify, I wasn't characterizing your questions as sniping. Or your lack of response as retreating. I took your questions at face value. You can respond, or not, as you like. No worries.
The constant amazement/amusement at the derail is what I was calling sniping, and the "I don't care if we get on topic" is what I called retreating. And the way you've expressed both of those sentiments is definitely a form of cavalier, too-cool-for-school hostility. Maybe you don't do it intentionally? I kind of doubt it. It's okay either way, though.
Anyway, sorry Lyr, any future comments like this I'll take to the other thread, I promise.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Threats to assassinate Romney explode after the first two debates.
quote:Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com October 17, 2012
Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue, Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the presidential race.
As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making direct death threats against Romney.
The primary reason given for Obama supporters wanting to see Romney dead is the fear that he will take away food stamps.
If the tables were turned and conservatives were making death threats against Obama in these numbers, it would be a national news story. Indeed, the mere act of hanging empty chairs from trees as a reference to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech was hyped by the media as a deadly sign that conservatives were out to lynch black people if Obama won.
However, the major networks have remained completely silent on the disturbing trend of Obama supporters threatening to resort to violence if their candidate fails to secure a second term.
Twitchy has compiled a laundry list of assassination threats by Obama supporters made during and after the debate, and more continued to flood in this morning....
Let me simply remind certain of my most derisive critics in this forum that this is exactly what I predicted four years ago. Riots and threats of violence, including assassination. And again I repeat, how confident can we be that Obama will follow civilized custom and give a gracious concession speech--and not give in to his strong narcissistic tendencies and indulge in negative denunciations of "racism," if he loses (which it is now looking more and more likely that he will).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You predicted there would be threats made against a presidential candidate four years ago?
The secret service has to deal with multiple threats daily against the president and presidential candidates. Why do you feel Romney is an outlier in this case?
President Obama has not made mention of assassination attempts made against him, he hasn't called for his supporters to use violent means to stop Romney from being elected, he has no history of asking that supporters harm other people. Violent or weapon based imagery are not a feature of his rhetoric.
You can find plenty of places on the internet where people are advocating violence against just about anybody.
Nobody on the left is rioting, if Romney is elected, we will do exactly what the right did when Obama was elected, accept the president elect, regardless of who he is.
Hopefully this time with more grace than many of Obama's vocal critics have exhibited, where they wasted years of discourse trying to talk about him being from another country, or just not American thus disrespecting that great office, and besmirching it.
You are making something out to be an anomaly which in reality has been the norm for decades.
Goodness, Ron, do go more into detail about what exactly you mean by your suggestion that Obama is not civilized...as though it weren't perfectly clear.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You know, realtalk: given the nature of ron's real and testable delusional mentality, it's probably not real clear. It's not clear to him. There's no rational apprehension of it that we can unpack, just the effects as they float to the surface of his mind. If it's ultimately about something that he would feel uncomfortable about us finding out about, then he has thoroughly put up a dissonance wall that prevents him from consciously self-recognizing it.
WE HAVE NOW DESCENDED to where ron is literally posting infowars links. There is nothing here to engage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There is nothing here to engage.
If you want the mice to leave your pantry, stop leaving food out for them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well the secret atheist commie Kenyan Muslims aren't going to just stop running for President, nor is Ron going to just stop being nutty and dishonest, so we may as well play with the mice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:There is nothing here to engage.
If you want the mice to leave your pantry, stop leaving food out for them.
"Do Not Feed The Trolls" has never been good advice, in any incarnation. (that is a serious not dismissive thing it's just like not how it works, whether talking about real trolls, really bad posters, or rons)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The thing is, it's not just the troll, it's the splash damage. I think you're all dead on in your responses, but Ron posts one crazy pants thing and then I have to read the fifteen responses that follow that all more or less say the same thing. And you never get anywhere.
Could we at least designate just one person to respond to him if we're so set on countering everything he says with something? At this point, I'm not so much worried about hoping he'll go away if we leave him alone as I'd like to limit the eye strain from reading all the responses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.
I second the nomination.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing is, it's not just the troll, it's the splash damage. I think you're all dead on in your responses, but Ron posts one crazy pants thing and then I have to read the fifteen responses that follow that all more or less say the same thing. And you never get anywhere.
Could we at least designate just one person to respond to him if we're so set on countering everything he says with something? At this point, I'm not so much worried about hoping he'll go away if we leave him alone as I'd like to limit the eye strain from reading all the responses.
If we get ten of the chronic Ronsponders in on this I am so so down, but you are battling against the weird mix of incredulity and offense and amusement that someone like Ron brings to the table
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I nominate Lyrhawn for our Designated Ron Responder position.
I'd have to decline for health reasons.
I don't think my blood pressure could take that high stress a position.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mitt Romney, once again recorded speaking candidly in 2002: "I'm a big believer of getting money where the money is and the money's in Washington"
Done being surprised
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Were you ever surprised that Romney could flip flop on an issue?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think the surprising thing is not that he could flip-flop on an issue, but that he apparently flip-flops on every issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This isn't about flip-flopping as much as it's about what he says when his crafted image isn't on the line, annnnnnd
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean seriously here you have a guy putting out wide platitudes and promises about cutting the deficit and cutting government spending and stopping frivolous spending, and here he is just excitedly revealing that he is enamored and committed to the exact same bring-home-the-bacon moneygrab that makes it the most hypocritical stance possible.
Stuff like this is why it is wholly and massively unsurprising that the red states are basically America's welfare queens, and that the blue states have to make up the difference that Republicans in congress funnel to themselves, while loudly proclaiming how wasteful the 'tax and spend' liberals are. Gaw! Now I'm ranting. The GOP is crap, y'all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I could understand a charge of hypocrisy, but I don't think you could reasonably call this a 'flip-flop'. And even hypocrisy is, in my biased opinion, a bit of a stretch; it's more like he had a chance to take a principled stand and didn't. But I don't think that recognizing that Washington spends an enormous amount of money and even competing for a share of it is inconsistent with believing the system would be improved by cutting that spending; in fact, I would say it's rather congruous. When FDR appointed Joe Kennedy to head the SEC, it was precisely because he'd been so effective at manipulating the stock market to his advantage and knew how to detect and combat the fraud that was occurring. I would say Romney's actions aren't significantly more hypocritical than, say, Warren Buffet claiming his tax rate is unfairly low, but not then choosing to pay at a higher rate.
<edit>Also, people who do choose to take principled stands can alternatively be viewed as bomb-throwing ideologues (cf. Scott Walker), and people who compromise principle to solve problems are often heralded as clear-eyed pragmatists (cf. our current President). The idea that taking a principled 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' stand ought to be considered an electoral positive isn't obvious, at least to me. We talk about wanting leaders who can solve problems and get things done, but then we turn around and bludgeon with an ideological cudgel those who dare to actually go through the moral compromises necessary to solve actual problems. And so we end up with an increasingly intractable government, peopled by principled ideologues of both stripes whose commitment to ideological purity prevents progress on any of the pressing problems we wanted them to solve.</edit>
[ October 22, 2012, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Stuff like this is why it is wholly and massively unsurprising that the red states are basically America's welfare queens, and that the blue states have to make up the difference that Republicans in congress funnel to themselves, while loudly proclaiming how wasteful the 'tax and spend' liberals are. Gaw! Now I'm ranting. The GOP is crap, y'all.
Also, this rant is both in poor taste and significantly statistically flawed (if I'm correctly taking your meaning); the money that flows to these 'welfare queen' states goes to a population that votes, overwhelmingly, for Democrats. It is taken from a population that is, overwhelmingly, Republican. This just reflects that rich people tend to be Republican and poor people tend to be Democrats, regardless of the 'color' of the state they live in.
<edit>In my fervor, I'm assuming facts that aren't in evidence here. For instance, that what Samp's calling 'welfare queen' spending goes to the poor, which probably isn't the case. Samp's probably more offended by old-school Ted Stevens/John Murtha-esque leveraging of positions of power to send pork back home. I haven't done the hard work of understanding what the 'welfare queen' rant is founded on, and as such I spoke without really knowing much about what I was talking about here.
It is true, however, that regardless of the state they live in, poor people tend to vote for Democrats and rich people tend to vote for Republicans. That tendency of increasing Republican vote share with wealth is more muted in 'blue states' and more prominent in 'red states' but it exists everywhere.</edit>
[ October 22, 2012, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was unaware that corporate welfare and pork barrel money went to poor democrats, and that taxpayers in blue states are "overwhelmingly republican."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Also, this rant is both in poor taste and significantly statistically flawed (if I'm correctly taking your meaning); the money that flows to these 'welfare queen' states goes to a population that votes, overwhelmingly, for Democrats.
What population are you talking about? I thought the by far largest group getting welfare was poor, rural whites, who I'm pretty sure are pretty consistently Republican.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sorry, you're both probably right. See my edit above.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In your edit, you said that poor people vote Democrat and rich people vote Republican. I don't believe that this is at all true. Poor rural whites very consistently vote Republican. The average income in "blue states" tends to be much higher than that in "red states" and having a college education skews one significantly towards voting Democratic.
The primary core of the Republican party is low education, poor whites.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wealth is certainly concentrated in states with large urban centers, particularly on the coasts-which trend blue quite a lot often more than less.
What that means is up for discussion, but I suspect a stranger to our world if presented only with state voting patterns and concentrations of wealth would suspect that Democrats were the ones who were favoring the wealthy.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In your edit, you said that poor people vote Democrat and rich people vote Republican. I don't believe that this is at all true. Poor rural whites very consistently vote Republican. The average income in "blue states" tends to be much higher than that in "red states" and having a college education skews one significantly towards voting Democratic.
The primary core of the Republican party is low education, poor whites.
(1) Going from 'poor people' to 'poor rural White people' is a large step. (2) Poor people, even poor white people, mostly vote Democratic. Here's some evidence from the 2000 and 2004 elections. (3) You're probably right that once you throw in the 'rural' modifier, poor rural white people are more likley to vote for Republicans than they are to vote for Democrats. However, they are almost surely less likely to vote for Republicans than rich rural white people.
I've often recommended the book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State by Andrew Gelman who is a quantitative political scientist at Columbia (and who made the charts showing voting patterns by income and ethnicity that I linked to above). It's a great discussion of what the data tell us about the inferential power of demographic information, particularly income but also race, profession, religious affiliation and others, on voting behavior.
I don't know how I would identify the 'core' of either party objectively, but I would be quite surprised if there is any meaningful way in which poor rural whites can be defined as the core of the Republican party. I think it's probably more accurate (but still very wrong) to say 'the core of the Democratic party is uneducated urban minorities'.
<edit>Here's a more recent post from Gelman at The Monkey Cage blog talking about some of the same issues while using more up-to-date data. He also links to a couple of other Monkey Cage posts by John Sides and Larry Bartels discussing whether there is a long term trend of poor whites toward the Republican party. You can see in Gelman's second graph that in the 2008 election, those at the poor end of the economic scale voted for Obama by a ratio of about 3:1 (at least in the three representative states of Mississippi, Ohio and Connecticut). </edit>
[ October 22, 2012, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except that there aren't really enough minorities to make up the "core" of any particular voting block.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except that there aren't really enough minorities to make up the "core" of any particular voting block.
There aren't really that many rural poor whites, either. That was part of my point.
<edit>As a 'back of the envelope' calculation, based on the most recent census rural population is just under 20% of total US population. I don't know exactly how 'rural' correlates with economic and racial demographics, but if we assume it's a bit poorer and a bit whiter than the US population as a whole, that still suggests that only about 10% of the US population is white, rural and poor. Additionally, not all of those are Republican; I would estimate somewhere around 65%. So, on the order of 5% of the entire US population. Oh, and I forgot uneducated, which would narrow it down further. So, maybe 2.5%? That's an awfully small group to form the 'core' of a major national organization.</edit>
<edit2>On the other side, about 80% of the US population is classified as Urban on the census*. Of that population, I'd estimated 40% is made up of ethnic minorities (appr. 32% of total US, somewhat concentrated in Urban centers). I don't know the exact correlation between urban minority status and poverty, but it's certainly higher than the general population; let's say it runs at about 25%. So 10% of the US population is urban, minority, and poor. I'd estimate that 'urban, poor minorities' make up about the same percentage of our total population as 'rural, poor whites', that their voting habits are likely more homogenous, although they may be less likely voters. So all things considered, I'd guess they're probably similarly influential on their respective parties.
*'Urban' for the census probably means something other than 'urban' we use colloquially, and encompasses a large 'suburban' population that isn't truly rural. However, given the assumption that poor minorities don't generally live in what is conventionally considered 'suburbs', I don't think this materially affects the above estimates.</edit2>
[ October 22, 2012, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This isn't about flip-flopping as much as it's about what he says when his crafted image isn't on the line, annnnnnd
You mean he, by all outward appearances, lies about his view on every issue?
Failing that, that he doesn't *have* stable views on any issue? Because yeah, at this point there is tape of Mitt Romney saying almost *everything*. Which, for a person who is in politics, either means he is lying at least half of the time (less really, but that half of his positions are lies), or that he has actually changes his mind completely, at some point, on *everything.* And more than once on some things.
Politicians do change their minds. And they do lie.. I rather suspect that Barack Obama was mostly lying when he said he didn't feel gay marriage was right in 2008. I saw it as alikely lie even then- one that many democrats had been cowardly enough to tell. But on the other hand, he could sell that as a change of heart, and he did. Mitt isn't even attempting this. He's trying to portray positions that oppose each other as being totally compatible. For no reason. It would be like Obama saying that he wasn't wrong in 2008, but that he now supports gay marriage. His support rather hinges on him admitting he either lied, or changed his mind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Remember when I mentioned the Romney campaign scoring political points off the tragedy in Libya?
quote:I guess this is what happens late in the tight presidential race. Ronna Romney is the ex-sister-in-law of Mitt Romney. She’s apparently remained close to the Romney family. She has a minor role in the Romney campaign in Florida and has recently appeared at campaign events in Michigan with her daughter.
Earlier this afternoon she posted these grotesque images of the mangled body of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens with the words “Obama killed him” surrounded by dripping blood.
I wouldn't recommend clicking the link. The pictures are pretty awful.
[ October 22, 2012, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Were any of the pictures of Sean Smith?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Vilerat?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The debate is on, and early pollsters are predicting a 100% chance of ron lambert conclusively deciding a Romney win
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney has a larger flag pin, election is over guys
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's a boring question, and really I'm not sure 100% is a high enough number. Can we get odds that Ron will conclude that Obama says something in this debate that conclusively demonstrates Obama hates America, and that anyone who doesn't see that is an easily fooled twit who probably does too?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the fact that Obama showed up for the debate and didn't just hand the presidency to Romney while bowing and scraping in abject apology is proof, to Ron, that he hates America.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Gov. Romney's foreign policy is much like his budget plan; no specifics. He talks about "encouraging" extremists to be more moderate. Well duh. Maybe Santa can help with that when he brings us all the extra money.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Syria is Iran's route to the sea?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Yeah, I laughed at that one.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"I'm going to do everything Obama has already been doing right but better, vote for me."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the fact that Obama showed up for the debate and didn't just hand the presidency to Romney while bowing and scraping in abject apology is proof, to Ron, that he hates America.
it is additionally evidence of obama's fundamentally narcissistic lemonade stand ayers jeremaiah wrong nate dhalani plot to turn america purposefully into a third world nation, because: agenda Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as a result of that debate, romney's position is clearly stronger than ever and he is sure to even more 100% than before probably win the race
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok i'm done
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Syria is Iran's route to the sea?
I think he simply misspoke. More than likely he was remembering that Syria is Russia's only route to the Mediterranean sea, which is why they are propping up the Assad regime. Syria is also rightly called Iran's only ally in the region. He just juxtaposed those two facts together when he tried to compile his words as he spoke.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, those kinds of mistakes I've tried to remember are so very easy to make. It's when I begin to believe that the speaker actually forgets, rather than accidentally switches a geographical or political word, that I begin to be concerned. I would be surprised, say whatever else I might, to learn that Romney wasn't able to reliably map out the various regions of the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now I have this mental image of Romney, in that nasal, stentorian voice of his, doing Yakko's "Nations of the World" bit.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Now I have this mental image of Romney, in that nasal, stentorian voice of his, doing Yakko's "Nations of the World" bit.
United States, Mexico, Canada, Panama, Haiti, Jamaica , Peru... Ummm
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think he simply misspoke. More than likely he was remembering that Syria is Russia's only route to the Mediterranean sea, which is why they are propping up the Assad regime. Syria is also rightly called Iran's only ally in the region. He just juxtaposed those two facts together when he tried to compile his words as he spoke.
Alright, that really drops my willingness to believe it was a slip of the tongue, Jon Boy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just can't figure out why he keep saying it. Has he never seen a map of the Middle East? Has no one pointed out the two major problems with his statement? Or does he just like it so much that he doesn't care and keeps using it anyway?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah. It's starting to sound like an incorrect fact Romney has latched onto, and is having trouble discarding.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"Incorrect fact" makes me giggle.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: "Incorrect fact" makes me giggle.
Why?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because facts are, by their very nature, correct.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Because facts are, by their very nature, correct.
That's not true. At least that isn't how we use the word in all cases. From Dictionary.com
3: something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Romney believes it's a fact, so it becomes a fact as far as he is concerned, it's not actually correct, so it becomes an incorrect fact.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oh, I know it's sometimes used that way, but it's an unfortunate imprecision in the language given the conflicting definitions that tend to show up higher on the list provided by every reference I am familiar with.
The expression "You aren't entitled to your own facts" completely loses meaning when we accept that a fact can be something one merely believes to be true.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Because facts are, by their very nature, correct.
That's not true. At least that isn't how we use the word in all cases. From Dictionary.com
3: something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Romney believes it's a fact, so it becomes a fact as far as he is concerned, it's not actually correct, so it becomes an incorrect fact.
Yeah I'm with Matt on this one.
That's a muddying of the definition of "fact."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"I'm going to do everything Obama has already been doing right but better, vote for me."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Because facts are, by their very nature, correct.
That's not true. At least that isn't how we use the word in all cases. From Dictionary.com
3: something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Romney believes it's a fact, so it becomes a fact as far as he is concerned, it's not actually correct, so it becomes an incorrect fact.
Yeah I'm with Matt on this one.
That's a muddying of the definition of "fact."
You guys are welcome to insist on your only using the word fact to describe things that are true. You guys can even form a club, that doesn't change how the word is used by others.
There's a long list of uses outside of your prescribed choice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, was it a fact that the sun revolved around the earth? Lots of people believed it.
In your example, what highly questionable facts means is statements where it is questionable whether they actually are fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seems pretty straightforward to me: BlackBlade was keeping in mind the broader usage of the word 'fact', and that's why the initial joke got a raised eyebrow, that's all.
It's not as though he has said 'a fact is what people think it is, if there's enough of them' or any such stuff, he's just talking about the common definitions of the word.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not always a fan of language relativism.
At some point, words can't mean whatever we want them to mean at a given moment. That's not how language is supposed to work.
I understand that words change in definition over time and its a constantly evolving process. But at what point does true mean false and left means right, and the whole endeavor just loses coherence? If words stop having universally understood meanings, then we'll stop being able to understand each other, which I think is evidenced, this year especially, in presidential elections.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I just can't figure out why he keep saying it. Has he never seen a map of the Middle East? Has no one pointed out the two major problems with his statement? Or does he just like it so much that he doesn't care and keeps using it anyway?
To me, without any further information, it seems likely he's talking specifically about access to the Mediterranean Sea, which would be important for, say, using small boats to evade the Israeli blockade or to smuggle CBRN material into Europe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That still makes no sense as Iran and Syria don't share a border. Iran has to go through Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: At some point, words can't mean whatever we want them to mean at a given moment. That's not how language is supposed to work.
I understand that words change in definition over time and its a constantly evolving process. But at what point does true mean false and left means right, and the whole endeavor just loses coherence? If words stop having universally understood meanings, then we'll stop being able to understand each other, which I think is evidenced, this year especially, in presidential elections.
As far as I know, language never gets to that point. The story of the Tower of Babel aside, I don't know of any cases wherein people lost the ability to communicate because words no longer had stable meanings. People are simply too invested in being able to communicate—even in a hostile political environment like this—to let the whole endeavor just lose coherence, as you say. Even when people argue like this, they're doing so to understand each other.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That still makes no sense as Iran and Syria don't share a border. Iran has to go through Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria.
And Iran is not on friendly terms with either Iraq or Turkey. Plus, Iran can still get to the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. It's a little roundabout, but I'm sure it's a lot easier than crossing through unfriendly territory.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
In elementary school we had the "fact vs opinion" dichotomy drilled into us. If it was something that could be evaluated for an objective truth value then it was a fact, whether it was true or not. This was contrasted with opinions which could be true statements relative to the speaker. Or something like that anyway.
So I didn't bat an eye at BlackBlade's usage. I heard it used that way many times before this one.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
This "fact" discussion is interesting to me because Lyr's use IS the more common one, I think. But today has led to lots of people using "fact" the way BB describes while masquerading as using it the way Lyr describes.
Lots of "fact checks" and similar are not about facts at all, they're about arguments. Calling them facts just gives them the trappings of authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This "fact" discussion is interesting to me because Lyr's use IS the more common one, I think. But today has led to lots of people using "fact" the way BB describes while masquerading as using it the way Lyr describes.
Lots of "fact checks" and similar are not about facts at all, they're about arguments. Calling them facts just gives them the trappings of authority.
Wow. I agree with Dan about something. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
We have a truth-neutral term which I prefer: claims. Claims can be true or false. Until verified as true or false, I prefer to describe these statements as claims.
If a claim is true, I call it a fact. If a claim is false, it's simply not true but demands investigation on why the person made the claim: Were they misinformed? Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it deliberate?
Because this is how I use the word "fact" (true claims), seeing incorrect fact does strike me as an oxymoron. Now, I get that there is that truth-neutral definition of fact. But it's a definition that I think is so far out of line with how the word fact is usually used that its not unreasonable to reject the definition in common usage. Communication requires mutual understanding, we tend to use "fact" in a non-truth neutral sense. Including a truth-neutral definition increases ambiguity and results in bad communication.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: We have a truth-neutral term which I prefer: claims. Claims can be true or false. Until verified as true or false, I prefer to describe these statements as claims.
If a claim is true, I call it a fact. If a claim is false, it's simply not true but demands investigation on why the person made the claim: Were they misinformed? Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it deliberate?
Because this is how I use the word "fact" (true claims), seeing incorrect fact does strike me as an oxymoron. Now, I get that there is that truth-neutral definition of fact. But it's a definition that I think is so far out of line with how the word fact is usually used that its not unreasonable to reject the definition in common usage. Communication requires mutual understanding, we tend to use "fact" in a non-truth neutral sense. Including a truth-neutral definition increases ambiguity and results in bad communication.
The problem with this attitude is that there are so many things which we can think are true and then turn out to be false because we didn't have sufficient understanding of the issue.
This is less often the case, but still happens, with basic facts about the physical world around us. And more importantly, it's incredibly common with countless other issues people disagree about (including politics, the issue of this thread.)
I think once someone is convinced that something they believe is a verified "fact" they entrench that idea and resist further criticism of it. This has negative consequences, and as far as I can tell no positive ones. Better to hold your ideas tentatively, and be open to criticism and argument in case you've misunderstood something.
Kate: Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: We have a truth-neutral term which I prefer: claims. Claims can be true or false. Until verified as true or false, I prefer to describe these statements as claims.
If a claim is true, I call it a fact. If a claim is false, it's simply not true but demands investigation on why the person made the claim: Were they misinformed? Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it deliberate?
Because this is how I use the word "fact" (true claims), seeing incorrect fact does strike me as an oxymoron. Now, I get that there is that truth-neutral definition of fact. But it's a definition that I think is so far out of line with how the word fact is usually used that its not unreasonable to reject the definition in common usage. Communication requires mutual understanding, we tend to use "fact" in a non-truth neutral sense. Including a truth-neutral definition increases ambiguity and results in bad communication.
I think once someone is convinced that something they believe is a verified "fact" they entrench that idea and resist further criticism of it. This has negative consequences, and as far as I can tell no positive ones. Better to hold your ideas tentatively, and be open to criticism and argument in case you've misunderstood something.
That's fair.
Though I would say not all claims are equal. Just because further testing may invalidate some claims previously held as true does not justify saying that no claim should be held above another. While I agree that we must make sure we remain open to criticism, I also think we shouldn't go too far the other way and value untested claims to the same degree as rigorously examined claims which, for the evidence we have, appear to be true.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I agree completely and unambiguously. It's important to recognize that truth and facts exist, even if we can't know for sure we've found them!
I don't even really have a problem with people thinking something is true or is a fact. I'm mainly wary of it in the context of arguments and discussions. I think we often have a tendency to say "No, I'm right because X is a fact." Which isn't actually an argument. Even if X is a fact, it may not mean what you think it means or have the consequences you think it has.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That still makes no sense as Iran and Syria don't share a border. Iran has to go through Iraq or Turkey to get to Syria.
And Iran is not on friendly terms with either Iraq or Turkey. Plus, Iran can still get to the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal. It's a little roundabout, but I'm sure it's a lot easier than crossing through unfriendly territory.
It didn't stop them from recently smuggling at least one drone to Hezbollah. Border smuggling and intrusion is a persistent problem, even in advanced states like the US; getting stuff from Iran to Syria is maybe risky, but certainly not prohibitively so.
The alternative route around the peninsula and through the canal is much more heavily monitored and regulated, and would probably (I'm no expert) require larger boats that would make stealth incursions through the Israeli blockade or into European sea space more difficult.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think, perhaps, a more likely explanation is that Gov. Romney confused Iran with Iraq - which does share a border with Syria and is otherwise almost landlocked.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, there's been a crazy huge shift on Intrade today. Obama to win down by more than 40c. I can't understand it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Third party debate was pretty interesting.
Things I like: they talked about incredibly important issues that haven't been discussed at all, or for a long time. They provided a great political alternative and did a great job of showing how broad the political spectrum is and how narrowly Obama and Romney occupy it.
Things I didn't like: They were only asked six questions that by and large made them almost all sound exactly the same. While they all differed greatly from Romney/Obama, they sounded in lockstep with each other on most things. I know in reality that for everything Jill Stein and Gary Johnson agree on that differs from Romney and Obama, there are three things they disagree on. But we never really got into that.
I'll say this though, if Stein and Johnson had been on state with Obama and Romney, it would have been a frigging sight to see.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, there's been a crazy huge shift on Intrade today. Obama to win down by more than 40c. I can't understand it.
Make that 60 cents. WTF? Some people spent some serious money today.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, some of the talking heads are saying that although Obama clearly won this latest debate by a substantial margin, Romney may have still done what he needed to do in the long run by a) not screwing up egregiously in the area the public thought him weakest and b) adding extra 'seems Presidential' cred to his rep.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Couldn't it be a consequence of the steep drop in the Dow Jones over the last few days?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't really get the furor over this. It was stupidly phrased, but anyone with half a brain can discern his actual meaning.
If I thought abortion was murder I'd oppose it in cases of rape, certainly. It seems logically consistent. The kid didn't ask to be put there, and murdering him because of someone else's actions would be wrong.
I mean, it's not a kid yet and has no preferences, so it isn't murder. But if it was, a rape exception would be hard for me to swallow.
[ October 24, 2012, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't really get the furor over this.
Go up to rape victims who have been impregnated by their attackers, and without any concern for whether they follow a conservative religious viewpoint about these sorts of things, tell them what happened to them was intended by God. Handwring to be sure to let them know that rape is wrong, of course, but the pregnancy is a gift by God and it would be wrong to offer them the choice to terminate the pregnancy because it is divinely intended that the attack impregnate them. In essence, represent Mourdock's Discerned, Actual Meaning to them.
If some of them can really honestly still talk after being told this, be sure to let us know if you still genuinely don't get their furor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Don't Christians believe all hardships are intended by God? Isn't that, like, part of believing in an omnipotent God in the first place?
Having never been a Christian, maybe some part of that is eluding me. What am I missing?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Also, no, you're still sort of obfuscating the actual meaning of what he said, but that's less interesting to me than the questions I asked above.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Don't Christians believe all hardships are intended by God? Isn't that, like, part of believing in an omnipotent God in the first place?
Not necessarily. The more standard line is that the bad things that happen are unintentional (foreseen, perhaps, but regrettably unavoidable) side-effects of God's plan.
I don't think that point of view makes sense when you look at the details, but then the view that God intentionally sent a dude to rape you makes even less sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
(Please note that while there will be a lot of anger in this post, it's not directed at you, but rather at Mourdock and those who actually agree with, rather than can understand, what he thinks.)
Before anyone even comes to the inhumanity of telling someone who was raped, "God meant for this to happen," there's an even more absurd, fundamental problem with what Mourdock said. It's just awfully, wickedly stupid before one even gets to the part where you tell the victim their abuse had divine sanction.
That problem is this: if you believe that God intends a rape to happen, then you must certainly also believe-or else just be a completely arbitrary hypocrite-that everything that happens, good or bad or in between, is a reflection of God's will. From the miraculous remission of a cancer to a toddler dying in agony to the working man who's decently well off but doesn't get the raise he was hoping for. That is just a senseless, evil world order but if Mourdock does believe that, alright.
Except he doesn't. Here is the real problem, the real glaring hypocrisy, the real sign that he is both a moral and an intellectual scrub. When Mourdock's children or family gets sick...where will he take them? Will they go to church, or to see a freaking doctor? Or is it God's will that a woman be impregnated by rape-and thus we shouldn't interfere-but it's not God's will that we die of a burst appendix, therefore in that instance we should? Does Mourdock brush his teeth? Bathe? So it's God's will that a woman be impregnated by rape, but it's not God's will that we stink and our teeth gradually rot and then fall out, therefore we can't interefere in the one case but we can in the other two?
How in the hell does Mourdock grade which event is God's will and which isn't? Actually I don't know, but surely Dan you can already see that there isn't any rhyme or reason to it. But I can say this: there are all sorts of things in Mourdock's daily life that would naturally occur is not prevented, but because prevention makes human life better, Mourdock does so like the rest of us. He brushes his teeth, he bathes, he visits a doctor, he uses indoor plumbing, he first rides in an automobile and then uses a seatbelt, he has health insurance, so on and so forth.
That means one of a few possibilities. One, God's will was for a woman to be impregnated by rape but it's not also God's will that he pray his way through a bout of bronchitis. Two, it's God's will for a woman to be impregnated by rape, and God's will that he pray his way through bronchitis, but Mourdock ignores God's will in the latter case. Three, it's not God's will in either case, and Mourdock is simply wrong-with all of the remaining hypocrisies.
Which begs the question: why is Mourdock willing to label rape pregnancies as God's will that must not be interfered with, but not everything else? Is it only God's will for the great big events to happen, such as the creation of life? If so, how does Mourdock know where that cut off is? At what point does an event go from being God's will to being the sort of thing humans can safely utilize planning and technology to change or avoid?
I hope I've explained myself well, and that you can see why it is actually very reasonable to look at Mourdock's statements with revulsion and contempt even before you get to what will likely be the most common reaction: disgust over the contempt it expresses for women. It would seem God really stuck it to women, because men can be raped, but they cannot ever be impregnated by rape. I wonder if this extra vulnerability is just a carryover of Eve's tempting wickedness in the Garden of Eden or some absurdity.
People actually do step forward and claim that it is God's will that human beings grow sick and die in agony from various illnesses. 'Before his time' isn't a phrase that has meaning for these people, even in the case of children. They will claim that God has a plan, and that plan clearly includes illness but does not also include antibiotics or vaccinations. They'll claim that God's will is that their child must struggle through a given terrible illness, and that any method aside from prayer (hah. 'method') of handling the illness is in defiance of God's will.
Society rightly holds these people in contempt, and what's more we're fine with holding them in contempt. We are content to say, "You can make that decision for your own self, but we're not going to allow you to make it for anyone else," even though the rationale is exactly the same as Mourdock's.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Don't Christians believe all hardships are intended by God? Isn't that, like, part of believing in an omnipotent God in the first place?
Having never been a Christian, maybe some part of that is eluding me. What am I missing?
No. And too much to fill in the gaps here.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay so I retract my comment that anyone with half a brain can discern his intent. Clearly, I was wrong.
Here's the thing, Rakeesh: I don't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, but I also don't think much of what you said really follows from his line of thinking.
I think it goes more like this, in his head:
The creation of human life is a miracle from God, because humans are chosen by God and can go to heaven and whatnot. Murdering an innocent human (including a bundle of embryonic cells which counts as a human) is wrong. Punishing a child for its father's sins is wrong (except I guess when God does it?)
So when someone commits a terrible sin (rape) and a human life comes about from that, then (like all pregnancies) that life is a gift from God. And it's a person in its own right, innocent of the wrongdoing of its father. So murdering that person would be wrong.
--
Your comments about preventative measures like bathing and doctors aren't really relevant, though I can see why you would think they were. Here's the thing: I'm sure that if a woman shot an attempted rapist in the face (thereby preventing possible pregnancy!) Mourdock wouldn't object. It's only after the pregnancy has occurred that he cares, because now there's an innocent human life in the mix.
The same way that if a doctor saved your mom from cancer, I suspect Mourdock wouldn't mind. But if the doctor couldn't stop the cancer, and then instead helped your mother commit suicide because of the agony she was in, I bet that Mourdock would think that was wrong.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Don't Christians believe all hardships are intended by God? Isn't that, like, part of believing in an omnipotent God in the first place?
Having never been a Christian, maybe some part of that is eluding me. What am I missing?
No. And too much to fill in the gaps here.
Are you just speaking for yourself, here, or what? Because I'm quite sure I've seen this sentiment many, many times before.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
Oh, I'm quite sure he has constructed-or told himself he has-a philosophy in which all of this nonsense makes sense. So in your opinion, his outlook is that pregnancy really IS a special case, and all of the other bad things aren't...because they don't involve life? Or something.
Therefore it should be considered reasonable to intervene in events for, say, cancer because although that did happen, we can't say it's...God's will that it happened? Or we can, but in this case God's will is that it's permissable that we intervene. But when a rape pregnancy happens, then we can't intervene, because it's also God's will that it happen, but because there is a life involved, we can't intervene? Or...what, exactly?
I'm not talking about the completely unprovable (one way or another) claim that it's a human life from conception, I'm talking about the worldview that labels that conception as God's will and whether it makes a lick of sense or not. The only way it can be said to do so is if you start admitting all sorts of exceptions, qualifications, and special rules for special circumstances that Mourdock claims to have insight into not because of rigorous personal research but because of a moldy old book that tells us painful pregnancies are one of God's punishments on women!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What drives me nuts is that the only reason society as a whole credits the sort of bul@#$it thinking that Mourdock is using isn't because it's so potent and reasonable on its own, but because a whole bunch of other people think it and because our ancestors thought it. If he were saying, "I disapprove of and would disallow a rape exception because it could very well be a human life from conception, and we shouldn't take that risk until we know," I wouldn't look at him with such contempt. But no. Not only is Mourdock not uncertain whether it is a human life or not, he speaks for the sovereign of the entire freaking universe and tells us it absolutely is! But I suppose this is to be considered Christian humility, or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Punishing a child for its father's sins is wrong (except I guess when God does it?)
But continuing to punish the rape victim by forcing her to carry the offspring of the person who raped her for nine months is not wrong? Forcing her to keep in her body for nine months and then live with the rest of her life this reminder of what we can only hope is the worst moment of her life rather than allowing her to move forward is okay?
Only if one considers the rape victim less worthy of consideration than a fetus.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, no, because if that actually is a human life-which no one right now can claim to know, and anyone who says they do is selling something-then if it's terminated it's dead forever. We generally regard killing someone to be the ultimate in punishments, regardless of how awful the alternative might be.
So if someone-say an arbitrary God-appeared before me and plopped me down right in between the door to your home and your neighbor's and said, "I made a wager with Satan again, to see which you would decide: shall we subject kmbboots to some seriously nasty psychological torture and potentially some pretty serious physical suffering, both of which could have a shelf life of months or years; or shall we kill her neighbor outright?" and I picked you, I'm not sure you could then tell me* that I thought you were less worthy of consideration than your neighbor.
*Well, you could of course, because I did pick you and cause that suffering, and it would hardly be unfair for you to complain or seek vengeance for it. But that wouldn't be because I felt you were less worthy of consideration.
-----------------
Anyway, it's a bunch of frigging nonsense. If I claim tomorrow to have had visions that all life is sacred, period, and therefore we need to cease using soap and antibiotics because they kill trillions of bits of bacterial life, at best I wouldn't be taken seriously. I might depending on how committed-pun intended-I was to my newfound faith actually be committed, as a danger to myself and others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Don't Christians believe all hardships are intended by God?
quote:Isn't that, like, part of believing in an omnipotent God in the first place?
If these were "yes," and we are talking about the omnipotent christian god, you have a theological belief stuck having to admit not only that the pregnancy was intended by God, but that the rape itself was intended by God, and that either God intends and attentively creates specific acts of evil suffering to befall people, or that the act of raping someone is not evil (especially so if the end result forces the 'blessing' of life upon a woman, natch). Do you know what percentage of Christians are going to, if asked, fall in with that line of trainwreck philosophy?
In addition,
quote:Also, no, you're still sort of obfuscating the actual meaning of what he said
Triple No.
Applying the direct and necessary meaning of what he said is not obfuscating what he said. Telling it straight in all of its connotations directly to the face of those who have suffered through "God's intent" is not obfuscation. Unpacking his literal and legislative intent based on that view is not obfuscation. The issue is that I am discerning his actual meaning, and you are diffusing the meaning and cutting off the harsh edges.
But the main issue that the scenario attempts to address is that you literally don't understand the outrage at his comments. How people could be mad about them. I'm saying: take the absolute application of his statements and apply them directly as an assertion to the people whose situation he speaks to. If you still don't understand how furor can and will result ..
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, when I say "I don't get why people do X" I don't actually mean "I don't understand what motivates people to do X." I actually mean "I disagree with people that do X."
It's an imprecise use of language on my part, that leads to misunderstandings. Sorry about that.
Anyway, lots of Christians (hell, lots of non-Christians too) love platitudes about things happening for a reason without thinking through the ramifications of what they're saying very well.
"Everything happens for a reason," in quotes even, gets over 5 million hits on google. It's a common sentiment. It is fundamentally the same sentiment that Mourdock expressed here, albeit badly and on a controversial subject.
That, plus the adamant belief that clusters of embryonic cells are an innocent human life with full rights, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another area in which I do wish politicians would stop treating us like idiots: in defense of Mourdock's statements, more than one Republican has explained that what he actually meant was to affirm his belief that life is a gift from God.
Goodness, yes, and the next time executing minors comes up I'm sure we'll hear all about that respect for life from these same freaking politicians. I very much hope I live to see the day that when someone explains that they said something from a position of faith, that by default that makes it a good thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of what pro-life is.” Sister Joan Chittister
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to say, I've never been a fan of organized religion, but in the last year, American nuns have started to really turn me around. I've only recently discovered some of the comments made by nuns like Sister Chittister and Sister Simone Campbell, and I'll say this: if they were giving weekly sermons, I might actually go. They're engaging, friendly, funny, and seem to align perfectly with my own personal morality but with the arbitrariness or demonizing I grew up with in church. The Vatican shouldn't be trying to silence them, they should be giving them a megaphone.
I'm surprised to be saying this, but, I think I actually hew closer to Dan's reading on this. (write it down Dan, it's not going to happen often ). Rakeesh more or less explained my thoughts on the process. If you think abortion is murder, then while it's not fair to the mother and it's damaging, it remains the lesser of two evils between suffering and murder. I do happen to think abortion is murder, and I actually support legislation to ban late term abortions. For people who believe that and believe they can enforce that belief upon others, the method of conception is tragic but irrelevant to the larger question.
I think the Mourdock comment was foolish and insensitive on such a hot button issue, but the general sentiment behind it, that all life is precious and rape isn't a good enough reason to snuff out that life, is a perfectly valid opinion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, just as I disagreed with kmbboots, I'll have to disagree with you too, Lyrhawn. I don't think the method of conception is irrelevant, because the whys and hows of killing are always always relevant to what we decide the law is, I think.
Would we permit someone, a birthed human being to be specific, who if they grow ill through no fault of their own, to appropriate the bodily resources of a random other human being who has had no interaction with them at all, much less cause the need in the first place?
Would we permit such a thing if the first person, realizing they were sick and had only one way to live, latched onto this stranger and effectively forced their need on the second's body? Well, likely not, and with plenty of arguably good reasons.
But what if, as impossible as it is, the joining happened entirely by accident? What if the two people were kidnapped by some bizarre Saw villain guy (never seen any of them, don't know the name) and medically joined as a whimsically cruel experiment? Once the two people managed to escape the villain's clutches, would we then say that the second human can cut off the first...or that the first can insist the second not cut them off? I don't know. Maybe to either of them.
Don't really know, but I do think the question of how the need for the mother's body came to exist isn't relevant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those are interesting ways to pose the question that certainly muddy the black/white nature of the question on a moral basis.
But as I said, if you're someone who believes that abortion is murder regardless, then the circumstances don't alleviate the wrongness of murder. At the end of the day, the unborn child is still innocent of any possible justification that could be used for killing it short of a contest of health concerns between killing it or it killing the mother. The crime is with the father, not the unborn child. You can't transfer guilt to the fetus and carry out the sentence. So I maintain that, for people who believe abortion is murder, the circumstances of conception are irrelevant.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, just as I disagreed with kmbboots, I'll have to disagree with you too, Lyrhawn. I don't think the method of conception is irrelevant, because the whys and hows of killing are always always relevant to what we decide the law is, I think.
Would we permit someone, a birthed human being to be specific, who if they grow ill through no fault of their own, to appropriate the bodily resources of a random other human being who has had no interaction with them at all, much less cause the need in the first place?
Would we permit such a thing if the first person, realizing they were sick and had only one way to live, latched onto this stranger and effectively forced their need on the second's body? Well, likely not, and with plenty of arguably good reasons.
But what if, as impossible as it is, the joining happened entirely by accident? What if the two people were kidnapped by some bizarre Saw villain guy (never seen any of them, don't know the name) and medically joined as a whimsically cruel experiment? Once the two people managed to escape the villain's clutches, would we then say that the second human can cut off the first...or that the first can insist the second not cut them off? I don't know. Maybe to either of them.
Don't really know, but I do think the question of how the need for the mother's body came to exist isn't relevant.
This looks like a derivation of the Violinist example from Judith Thomson's essay "A Defense of Abortion." I think it's well worth a read.
To Lyrhawn in particular, Thomson explains the significant difference between murder and abortion in the article. It probably wouldn't be persuasive to most who already oppose abortion, but as someone who was on the fence, it persuaded me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't read the whole thing but I scanned through it. She does indeed make some persuasive arguments, but I'm sure it changes my mind.
I've gone back and forth on the acorn vs. the tree argument. I don't think that aborting a clump of cells is murder per se, but it strikes me as a sort of preventive murder. I've been through this debate on Hatrack before, but I believe that killing it before it's allowed to form sentience doesn't work as a moral loophole. And I believe, as I think most people would when pressed, that the baby does achieve sentience at some point well before actually being born. Extreme premature births produce viable babies all the time, more and more so as premature births become more and more commonplace. So while the line is arbitrary, the line is there, and there is a point at which it would seem most people would accept that its simply wrong. But I could be wrong in that last assumption.
Whether nor not rape is relevant depends, I suppose, on your justification for why abortion is right or wrong. Personally I don't have a clear answer to the question, but then, I've also never been in favor of legislating most restrictions on abortion, in part due to my own constantly changing stance on the issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But as I said, if you're someone who believes that abortion is murder regardless, then the circumstances don't alleviate the wrongness of murder. At the end of the day, the unborn child is still innocent of any possible justification that could be used for killing it short of a contest of health concerns between killing it or it killing the mother. The crime is with the father, not the unborn child. You can't transfer guilt to the fetus and carry out the sentence. So I maintain that, for people who believe abortion is murder, the circumstances of conception are irrelevant.
Well if you start out, by default, with the stance that abortion is murder, then no amount of circumstance will change anything except perhaps degree. But again, we and most human societies recognize the possibility of context changing a given killing, whether to raise it (so to speak) to murder, or lower it to manslaughter or even a negligent death, or even ennoble it by deeming it an act of defense.
The trouble is, you don't know it's murder-bear with me while I explain that remark. You don't know it's a human, so how can you then claim it's murder? It seems to me, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that you're starting from not one but two positions that cannot be argued or even reasoned with. One, that the life at any point in the pregnancy is human, a human child in fact; two, that any killing of that child under any circumstances is murder, short of a clear threat to the mother's life.
Is it still, for example, to be murder if the mother was raped, impregnated, and then her doctors inform her that carrying the pregnancy to term will likely result in lifelong serious health risks and problems for the mother? Suppose for example this mother is 14, and because of the usual tragedies attending rape, she doesn't get prenatal care. When the pregnancy become impossible to hide, it's clear she suffers from, I don't know, preeclampsia. Others can talk about that better than I, along with some of the other heavy hitters.
She's a child too. Is the answer always, in every single case, that the maybe-human fetus's life outweighs every single other concern short of the mother's-willing or no-life in exchange? Why? We wouldn't tolerate that sort of disparity of rights anywhere else.
Suppose I'm a doctor fresh out of medical school. My child needs a type of rare blood or even an organ quickly, and it is unlikely or even impossible that one can be found before the child dies. But I'm a doctor. I could conceivably take the blood or even an organ, from a complete stranger to save my child's life.
Would the person thus deprived of blood or organ(s) not then be able to demand justice and punishment of this doctor? Why is this any different?
The hypothetical scenario game can go indefinitely, and the only reason I offer it now is because of the way you offered, as mentioned above, what I perceived as two positions that you state as fact but that are actually hugely questionable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
To someone who truly believes life begins at conception, this would be morally equal to a woman being raped and then being presented by the rapist with a 2-year-old child to raise. The rape was a despicable act, and the pro-life person can feel horrible for the victim, but it still doesn't justify shooting the kid in the head to make the woman feel better. To the pro-life person, there is no difference between a 2-week fetus and a 2-year-old child.
(Note that I am pro-choice, I do not believe humanhood begins at conception, and I realize this doesn't begin to convey the horror of having to carry your rapist's child to term and then raise for life. And pro-lifers don't care about kids after they're born, yadda yadda. I'm just saying I can understand the logic.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I understand that to many pro-lifers it may feel as though those situations are the same, Chris, but no matter how earnestly they might feel that way it doesn't do anything to change how valid the comparison is, either more or less.
Some key differences: the two-year old is unquestionably a human being, by everyone's standards. There have been cultures in the past that didn't consider life even past birth to be fully human, in the sense of ideas such as not mourning (to the same extent) a child who dies at a few weeks old, but I don't think anyone has considered two-year olds to be lacking humanity. If the pro-lifer wishes to consider a cluster of cells a human life, they must actually make that case rather than insist it be considered a given.
The second major flaw in such a comparison is the idea that an abortion is done to make the mother feel better, case closed. While certainly there are people after such an event would feel better having all tangible reminders of it destroyed, it does nothing to address the fact that in that scenario, the woman is faced with much more than simply feeling bad about the reminder of the rape.
Speaking more generally, and about American politicians rather than grass roots organizations, I do think a charge of gross hypocrisy can be leveled at many of the same people who proudly lay claim to pro-life status, when we look at the comparative willingness between the two parties to make cuts to various social programs. The only potential excuse would be another unproven assertion, that such cuts will be covered by private charities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh, I posted my response in the Election Thread Annex. You can respond to me there if you'd like, but I didn't want to gum up this thread for a sustained period of time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, when I say "I don't get why people do X" I don't actually mean "I don't understand what motivates people to do X." I actually mean "I disagree with people that do X."
It's an imprecise use of language on my part, that leads to misunderstandings. Sorry about that.
ohhhhhhhhh.
okay.
to keep the issue grossly political and smug though: I am appreciative of the rapidly rising stigmatization of "no abortion even in case of rape" people because a) they're dangerous in terms of their patriarchal overreach and have to be the first ones targeted if one is pro-choice, and this is because b) making their position reliably untenable furthers a schism in pro-lifers which comfortably keeps pro-life morality too fragmented to do anything but concertedly promise old people that Roe v Wade is going down.
IN OTHER NEWS
A PERSON WHO, in this election at least, WE CAN ALL COMFORTABLY LAUGH AT
A lot of people were speculating that Trump had access to divorce papers the Obamas had drawn up when they went through a rough patch he describes in one of his books.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Some of us speculated that Trump was a gasbag and a fraud. Some of us were right.
quote:A lot of people were speculating that Trump had access to divorce papers the Obamas had drawn up when they went through a rough patch he describes in one of his books.
How weird. Since they're obviously not divorced, if such papers existed I would be inclined to assume their marriage was all the stronger for having been tested like that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:A lot of people were speculating that Trump had access to divorce papers the Obamas had drawn up when they went through a rough patch he describes in one of his books.
How weird. Since they're obviously not divorced, if such papers existed I would be inclined to assume their marriage was all the stronger for having been tested like that.
That sound like responsible voter talk. You need to start looking at everything Obama does negatively.
1: Raised largely overseas. That doesn't help him empathize with immigrants and other countries, it makes it impossible for him to be a real American.
2: Father abandoned him. He is hopelessly trapped trying to further his father's agenda all in a mad ploy to get him back.
3: His mother died from cancer after her insurance dropped her. He's angry at companies for trying to be successful.
4: Black. Therefore hates whites, especially rich ones.
5: Turned down a lucrative career in law to be a community organizer ergo he's a communist and collaborated with communists.
6: Religious ergo he must believe every single thing his minister said from the pulpet, especially the god damn America stuff.
Are you getting it?
[ October 25, 2012, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Obama as a black man will be too invested in his black identity to fairly identify with whites and runs too much of a risk of instituting systems of black supremacy, so he can't be president. And since when is this a racist sentiment? That people like him would think that it is only reinforces our point more.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:the huge swing toward Romney appears to have been driven by a single trader who spent about $17,800 buying up Romney shares and pushing the Republican candidate’s chances on Intrade up to 48 percent. But the surge only lasted a few minutes before other traders whittled the price back down to what they saw as a more accurate valuation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, I got that story. Glad I decided to short some Romney shares that night.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has threatened to arrest international election monitors invited by liberal groups to observe the conduct of next month's presidential vote in states accused of attempting to disenfranchise minorities.
Abbott has written to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe warning that its monitors have no right to monitor the vote even though they have observed previous US elections.
"The OSCE's representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offence for OSCE's representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place's entrance," he said. "Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE's representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law."
The OSCE is sending 44 observers to voting stations across the US at the request of various groups, including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, because of "an unprecedented and sophisticated level of coordination to restrict voting rights in our nation". These include attempts by several states, including Texas, to introduce voter identification laws and other measures blocked by federal courts which have ruled they were motivated by racial discrimination.
In his letter, Abbott glossed over the recent judgements striking down the Texas identification law and pointed to a supreme court ruling in a case involving another state.
"The OSCE may be entitled to its opinions about voter ID laws, but your opinion is legally irrelevant in the United States, where the supreme court has already determined that voter ID laws are constitutional," Abbott said.
The US routinely sends poll watchers to elections in foreign countries, particularly those where there are concerns about the fairness of the vote. In television interviews, Abbott denounced the OSCE as an interfering foreign body even though the US is a founding member and it was invited by President George Bush's administration to monitor the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the US.
"If OSCE members want to learn more about our election processes so they can improve their own democratic systems, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the measures Texas has implemented to protect the integrity of elections," Abbott wrote. "However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This state has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons – including persons connected with OSCE – are required to comply with these laws."
The OSCE responded later on Wednesday in a letter to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, calling Abbott's threat "unacceptable" and noting that the organisation's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has an agreement with the US permitting it to monitor elections.
"The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections," it said. "The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable."
A Florida congressman running for the Senate, Connie Mack, also waded into the debate, saying that reports the United Nations wants to send election monitors was an outrage. The OSCE was founded under the UN charter.
"The very idea that the United Nations - the world body dedicated to diminishing America's role in the world - would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting," he told the Orlando Sentinal.
"The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all. And the American people should demand that the United Nations be stopped from 'monitoring' American elections. The only ones who should ever oversee American elections are Americans."
Oh man, totally giving tin pot dictators excuses to expel our own monitors now since "The US does it too!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Time will tell.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Marlozhan, you should move this post to the election annex thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell. "As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.
whew good thing its post-racial america
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I wonder if it might be a consequence of the continuing dearth of jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if bad economic climates contribute to racial tensions. In fact, that's probably one way of understanding the explanation for Tea Party-type racial weirdness.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
This is weird:
quote:Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.
That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).
Among Republicans, there's a higher percentage who have explicit anti-black feelings than have implicit feelings. Among Democrats it's the reverse. I find this odd -- either the two ways of measuring really aren't directly comparable, or at least one of them isn't accurate.
It's really strange that a higher percentage of Republicans admit to racism against black people than have those feelings implicitly. I assume there's something going on besides some people pretending to be prejudiced when they actually aren't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Those implicit tests typically measure a particular sort of negative reaction to black faces which I'm not convinced is connected with actual bias, implicit or otherwise. My guess is that it probably has more to do with being familiar with having black people around. I strongly suspect the kind of racist who casually calls black guys "boy," or something like that, could score low on the implicit tests just because black people are kind of run of the mill for him.
On the other hand, though I've never taken one, I suspect I would have a pretty bad score, because I grew up in a part of Michigan where there aren't many black people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Those implicit tests typically measure a particular sort of negative reaction to black faces which I'm not convinced is connected with actual bias, implicit or otherwise. My guess is that it probably has more to do with being familiar with having black people around. I strongly suspect the kind of racist who casually calls black guys "boy," or something like that, could score low on the implicit tests just because black people are kind of run of the mill for him.\
A person like that would be actually reliably pegged by an IAT. The only way to get 'past' the IAT's prevention of responder bias in measurable degrees is to know what they are 'getting at' ahead of time and mentally reserve yourself, knowingly or otherwise, to prevent the positive bias from having a faster (more implicit and immediate) positive association.
This IAT is not confirmably, as far as I know, the head test that we saw in the Harvard demo IAT.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: This is weird:
quote:Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties.
That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).
Among Republicans, there's a higher percentage who have explicit anti-black feelings than have implicit feelings. Among Democrats it's the reverse. I find this odd -- either the two ways of measuring really aren't directly comparable, or at least one of them isn't accurate.
It's really strange that a higher percentage of Republicans admit to racism against black people than have those feelings implicitly. I assume there's something going on besides some people pretending to be prejudiced when they actually aren't.
What is entailed in the explicit test? Is it people self-reporting as racist? Answering explicit questions?
I can think of a few possible scenarios where answering explicit questions could give a misleading result based on the biases in the tester's interpretation method.
Sort of like the old "fox news viewers are misinformed" study a few years back.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:A person like that would be actually reliably pegged by an IAT.
Do you have a source for this? It seems to run counter to the data Shigosei mentioned. Just in the sense that the Democrat/Republican data showed a break between IAT results and explicit racially biased attitudes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.
end result: churches can become political with impunity.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
You can also fool the racist test by taking time to identify races. Or if you miscategorize the pics. Then the test comes back as undetermined. I did that, not intentionally, but I think that I know a lot of mixed race people and it gets all screwy in terms of identifying race for me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just so we're clear; Fox News viewers are the most consistently misinformed.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.
end result: churches can become political with impunity.
It's probably because these audits aren't popular on either side of the aisle. One could conclude that the audits would disproportional effect minorities who don't differentiate between church and community. They would have a huge effect in black and latino communities. It's also important to point out that churches aren't the only non-profit groups out there. The scope and impact of these audits would reach well beyond the realm of religion, even into the territory of community organizers and social welfare organizations.
And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.
[edit: typo]
[ October 29, 2012, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: capaxinfiniti ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Capax, the hell you know about churches in minority communities, exactly?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.
It should take more than blatantly violating the law to get in trouble for violating the law?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.
It should take more than breaking the law to get in trouble, eh?
/edit - ah, beaten to it
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nono, here's how it works: Obamacare is clearly the first step on a slippery slope down to rendering America a totally socialist nation. Specifically permitting churches to engage in partisan political activity, on the other hand, is certainly not a slippery slope to anything.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, guys, he disagrees with the law. You three are adorable when you snark at people and all, but... it's not actually a wacky thing to say. Here, let me demonstrate:
It should take more than smoking a joint to get you a prison sentence.
It should take more than sodomy to get you arrested (in whatever states still have those laws on the books.)
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to spend money on political speech.
It should take more than anything to get you indefinitely detained by the government.
... Those are just the ones I thought up off the top of my head, that I'm betting you guys might agree with.
People disagree with laws. A lot. This is actually not remotely surprising or flabbergasting or deserving of your sarcastic skepticism.
If you think he's wrong and it's a good law and it should be rigorously enforced, say that, and give your reasons why.
Or, if you think it's a bad law but it should be rigorously enforced anyway to preserve the rule of law, say that. This sort of smug sniping isn't really productive, though I'm sure it feels great.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Apparently, political endorsement is a freebie grab for churches: it's against the law and you are supposed to lose your tax exempt status, but the IRS has been structurally unable to approve church audits since 2009.
end result: churches can become political with impunity.
Easy, there. There's always a chance that some of these churches don't actually *have* tax-exempt status, the article assumes this particular church does but I don't see it actually backed up. Church in the Valley's web presence is...quaint, to say the least, so trying to figure it out myself has been inconclusive so far.
Though even if it is tax-exempt, maybe it's a matter of the IRS prioritizing resources for action? This church is tiny. If the larger churches like the United Methodist church, the SBC, even the LDS church...if one of them actively comes out in favor of a candidate, then I imagine you'll probably see IRS bureaucracy suddenly solving their internal issues very quickly. But for a tiny rural church in the middle of Texas? Probably simply not worth it.
I'm not excusing it, btw, but I wonder if that might be the reality of it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Yeah, guys, he disagrees with the law.
Re-reading the post, I guess you're probably right, but I actually never would have thought of this. The only reason I can think of for disagreeing with the law would be if one didn't think churches should be exempt in the first place.
I mean, does he think churches should just be the equivalent of tax-exempt super PACs?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, a small fish is a different matter, and if it's just a question of investigators having better things to do, well hey, that's legitimate. Gotta prioritize like you say.
I'm more interested in two things-one, the idea that we need to weaken the barrier between church and state as capaxinfiniti suggested. Two, wondering just what he meant exactly about minorities not differentiating between church and community (and the notion of why other church communities don't get lumped in with that), and just how exactly he came by that knowledge.
If you had said that, Dan, I would be happy to credit it as a serious, legitimate question worthy of discussion. But from capaxinfiniti, he's a partisan hack and has been for years. I'm comfortably sure I discern his meaning, and decided to call him on it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Re-reading the post, I guess you're probably right, but I actually never would have thought of this. The only reason I can think of for disagreeing with the law would be if one didn't think churches should be exempt in the first place.
Fair enough! In light of that, your question makes sense. My own inclination is towards the reason you state (no tax exempt status), so that's probably why I assumed he simply didn't agree with the law.
The "small fish" possibility given above also makes sense.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: . . . Two, wondering just what he meant exactly about minorities not differentiating between church and community (and the notion of why other church communities don't get lumped in with that), and just how exactly he came by that knowledge.
I thought it was pretty well documented that some minority groups, particularly black and Latino, tend to have really really strong ties to their churches. Is that not the case? I assumed that's all Capax was driving at, but I may have missed something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: This sort of smug sniping isn't really productive, though I'm sure it feels great.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: And really, it should take more than a politically-themed outdoor marquee to get the IRS on you case.
It should take more than blatantly violating the law to get in trouble for violating the law?
I don't think that a marquee such as the one in the article merits an IRS audit. The repercussions should be proportional to the infraction. The church or congregation could be fined, penalized, heavily censured, or placed in a probationary state. If this has happened before at the same location then the punishment could be, understandably, more significant. But when looking at the issue as a whole, there is other legal recourse the government should pursue before jumping to an IRS audit and the revocation of tax-exempt status, especially considering the precedent unnecessarily extreme measures would set.
It's also a much more complex issue than the article portrays it to be. In addition to the inherent complexity is the difficulty of prosecution. Religions and religious speech are protected by numerous amendments to the constitution. For example, just the fact that the marquee doesn't say the names "Obama" and "Romney" gives the church a substantial amount of legal wiggleroom.
Whatever one's view of this article, it isn't valid to claim churches can become political with impunity. Such a position doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
ETA this:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Though even if it is tax-exempt, maybe it's a matter of the IRS prioritizing resources for action? This church is tiny. If the larger churches like the United Methodist church, the SBC, even the LDS church...if one of them actively comes out in favor of a candidate, then I imagine you'll probably see IRS bureaucracy suddenly solving their internal issues very quickly. But for a tiny rural church in the middle of Texas? Probably simply not worth it.
I'm not excusing it, btw, but I wonder if that might be the reality of it.
An important point that shouldn't be overlooked.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't think that a marquee such as the one in the article merits an IRS audit. The repercussions should be proportional to the infraction. The church or congregation could be fined, penalized, heavily censured, or placed in a probationary state. If this has happened before at the same location then the punishment could be, understandably, more significant. But when looking at the issue as a whole, there is other legal recourse the government should pursue before jumping to an IRS audit and the revocation of tax-exempt status, especially considering the precedent unnecessarily extreme measures would set.
That's cool. I thought that "getting the IRS on their case" encompassed these sorts of things too, but I see what you had in mind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For the record:
quote: The American Red Cross does not accept or solicit small quantities of individual donations of items for emergency relief purposes. Items such as collections of food, used clothing, and shoes often must be cleaned, sorted, and repackaged which impedes the valuable resources of money, time, and personnel that are needed for other aspects of our relief operation.
The Red Cross, in partnership with other agencies, suggests that the best use for those types of donations is to support needy agencies within donors' local communities.
The best way to help a disaster victim is through a financial donation to the Red Cross. Financial contributions allow the Red Cross to purchase exactly what is needed for the disaster relief operation. Monetary donations also enable the Red Cross to purchase relief supplies close to the disaster site which avoids delays and transportation costs in getting basic necessities to disaster victims. Because the affected area has generally experienced significant economic loss, purchasing relief supplies in or close to the disaster site also helps to stimulate the weakened local economy.
quote:Whatever one's view of this article, it isn't valid to claim churches can become political with impunity. Such a position doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Right now? They absolutely can.
Never mind that the marquee is an example of a church which is becoming political with impunity; the issue is that the IRS has no way to approve audits of churches at this time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm surprised with Hurricane Sandy we haven't seen more conspiracy theorists claim that Obama created the storm in order to cancel the election.
I actually wonder at what point postponing the election for a week would actually be a good idea.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
From what I've read, it takes an act of congress (which isn't in session).
Meaning it aint happening.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm surprised with Hurricane Sandy we haven't seen more conspiracy theorists claim that Obama created the storm in order to cancel the election.
I actually wonder at what point postponing the election for a week would actually be a good idea.
I don't think it'd be a good idea to postpone the election. I mean, don't get me wrong, the timing of the election sucks for those who have been hard hit by Sandy. Even if things clean up enough that we don't have millions in emergency shelters and hotels, as people return to their houses, I'd think cleaning up the mess of contaminated water would take slightly higher priority than grabbing a utility bill to provide proof for voting.
But if we postponed the election, it will create nationwide problems as many won't get the memo. States have already spent tons of money on securing voting locations and sending mailers informing people of their voting location and the date. I think postponing the election would possibly make it worse than if we keep it where it's at.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Does this mean that if Romney wins the election, we will get to listen to some people blaming his victory on the hurricane, since Obama has more of a lead in the northeast?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: Does this mean that if Romney wins the election, we will get to listen to some people blaming his victory on the hurricane, since Obama has more of a lead in the northeast?
How is the hurricane supposed to give Romney any more votes?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, it's really unlikely to really change much of anything. With the possible exception of Virginia, none of the affected states are really in play.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Sorry, my tongue-in-cheek didn't come through. I wasn't being serious. Just reminiscing about the days of hanging chads...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey remember when I said this
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.
It's all still true but it comes at a terrible price.
I'm getting over 40 calls a day.
40.
I cannot watch a single damn youtube video or stream or any internet content without 2 minute ads going BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO FEED YOUR LIMBS TO A CHINESE PERSON WHILE LAUGHING AT YOU and MITT ROMNEY IS SUPERIMPOSED OVER THE IMAGE OF A YACHT
we're dying over here
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I know I've been keeping away from much of the election discussions, but here is a video of some seventy-five and older Americans and what they think of the whole situation.
We get a lot of ads for congressional races but I have hardly seen any for the presidential race.
On a more depressing note, how does one argue facts with someone whose argument is "Obama just gives me the heebie jeebies. I know he wants to hurt America with his agenda."
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Hey remember when I said this
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.
It's all still true but it comes at a terrible price.
I'm getting over 40 calls a day.
40.
I cannot watch a single damn youtube video or stream or any internet content without 2 minute ads going BARACK OBAMA WANTS TO FEED YOUR LIMBS TO A CHINESE PERSON WHILE LAUGHING AT YOU and MITT ROMNEY IS SUPERIMPOSED OVER THE IMAGE OF A YACHT
we're dying over here
Speaking from the storm-ravaged east coast, in a state where power outages were plentiful this week but presidential ads were few... I feel for you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My parents back in Michigan say they can't turn on the TV without seeing ads for the ballot proposals there. There are 6, which is way more than we usually have, and they all have big money behind them, so every commercial is either for or against one, back to back, constantly.
I'm glad I don't watch much TV anymore, but they've managed to take over large bits of the internet as well.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Yeah. The liberals in Maryland might as well stay home, since they are going to win anyways..
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Could explain to me where do the non-democratic and non-republican get their money from? No-one can possible believe they have a slightest chance of winning. So the real question is, what is those candidates' goal? To be recognized? I mean, if one gets like 5% it's a success, isn't it?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stephan, I hope all the liberals in Ohio think and do the same thing.
Speaking as a Michigander, I am appalled at some of the ballot proposals that are aimed at making amendments to the state constitution (five out of the six ballot proposals), some of which which are really attempts at special interest power-grabs.
One of them (Proposal 2) pretends to be about collective bargaining, but in reality would call over 170 existing laws into question and make it difficult to dismiss bad teachers, cops, or firemen. Since it would be an amendment to the state constitution, it would be very difficult to repeal it later, once everyone realizes how it is really being used to provide a sweetheart deal for unions.
Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills. This is really not feasible, no plan to provide this much alternative power generation has even been proposed (there is already a law on the books mandating that 10% of energy be produced by alternative means by a set date), and this more than doubling of the percentage would probably require that many existing coal- or oil-burning plants be closed so that the mandated total energy production from alternative sources could be reached. Again, since this would be a constitutional amendment, rescinding it would be very difficult even when rolling blackouts become the norm.
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
[ November 03, 2012, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Could explain to me where do the non-democratic and non-republican get their money from? No-one can possible believe they have a slightest chance of winning. So the real question is, what is those candidates' goal? To be recognized? I mean, if one gets like 5% it's a success, isn't it?
They spend most of their time fundraising and the like. They never get near the ammount of money the big two get. But, if they get 5% of the vote they will get some public money. The gov't will match them up to 90 million dollars.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its a *good* idea that coal plants are closed, they produce a truly massive amount of emissions and dangerous pollutants, for example acid rain is often associated with coal plants. Coal mining in particular requires strip mining and mountain top mining which results in significant mercury poisoning of the local water tables (see Virginia).
Green and alternate energy needs to be significantly and aggressively expanded if we're to meet the incoming "adjustment" as a soft bounce instead of a crash landing. You need to upgrade your energy grid anyways to a "smart" grid and this would simply be killing two birds with one stone.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
We had that here in Washington. I'm not a fan.
Yet Tim Eyman keeps trying to bring it back.
Which reminds me, we have Tim Eyman in Washington. I'm not a fan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills.
Oh noes! (Actually, Ontario, which is no environmental paradise and is slightly bigger than Michigan was only 2% short of 25% in 2005 and is probably over 25% by now, with no blackouts. We even export some power, so I give this a big *shrug*)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
(For those not already familiar with Michigan news: Canada is actually paying for the bridge.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In other news, analysts predict a steady silence from Ron once again on being caught out as seriously full of s*#t when speaking about politics.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous. If Canada is really going to pay for it, then let them build it. Why does the governor of Michigan have to push for it to be built? The governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican, and I voted for him. But I still do not believe him on this issue. I think he is just pandering to some of his business cronies.
Michigan is not a good place to build alot of windmills. There is too much freezing rain, which can destroy windmills. Michigan does already have several nuclear power plants, so the reliance is not solely on coal and oil.
There are modern methods of burning coal cleanly. The fear-mongering of people opposed to the expansion of the use of coal is just unscientific propaganda. They really just want an excuse to charge a big carbon tax, and keep America dependent upon foreign petroleum. What they really have at heart is a desire to restrict "other" people from having enough energy. These are the same people who want bigger government to exercise tyrannical control over the masses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stephan, I hope all the liberals in Ohio think and do the same thing.
Speaking as a Michigander, I am appalled at some of the ballot proposals that are aimed at making amendments to the state constitution (five out of the six ballot proposals), some of which which are really attempts at special interest power-grabs.
One of them (Proposal 2) pretends to be about collective bargaining, but in reality would call over 170 existing laws into question and make it difficult to dismiss bad teachers, cops, or firemen. Since it would be an amendment to the state constitution, it would be very difficult to repeal it later, once everyone realizes how it is really being used to provide a sweetheart deal for unions.
Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills. This is really not feasible, no plan to provide this much alternative power generation has even been proposed (there is already a law on the books mandating that 10% of energy be produced by alternative means by a set date), and this more than doubling of the percentage would probably require that many existing coal- or oil-burning plants be closed so that the mandated total energy production from alternative sources could be reached. Again, since this would be a constitutional amendment, rescinding it would be very difficult even when rolling blackouts become the norm.
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
Listen up good Ron because this is the only time this is going to happen: I actually agree with you on some of that.
As a fellow Michigander, I cast an incredibly critical eye on anything labeled a constitutional amendment, and I often find myself voting against things I agree with in principle because I don't feel our state constitution should be a chew toy for things that should be handled by the state legislature.
Off the top of my head I don't remember how I voted on each issue. I voted no one Prop 1 because the EMF law is terrible and ill-defined. Snyder shouldn't have the power to install czars in whatever city he deems necessary. Prop 2 was something I liked the idea of, enshrining collective bargaining rights and making it impossible to turn Michigan into a right-to-work state, but I don't remember if that overcame my dislike for constitutional amendments.
Prop 3 I left blank. I love the idea of 25 by '25. Economists say it'll create a ton of jobs in the state, and it's not much more aggressive than other states' portfolios, plus we already have one. But I can't see putting it in the constitution. It should be voted on by the legislature.
Prop 5 is incredibly stupid. Not only would that make it much more difficult for the legislature to balance the budget, most experts who have seen this law pass in other states say that two things happen: 1. States cut funding to local municipalities to make up the short fall, which means your property taxes go up as a result, and 2. states raise fees to make up lost revenue. So you'll still pay, it just creates a much more complicated system of who you're paying.
And man, if you're voting for Prop 6 you've totally drunk the Matty Moroun's kool-aid. Canada has already said they'd pay for everything except some of the Michigan-based facility upkeep and road construction. While we already have two bridges and a tunnel, the tunnel is for passenger cars only, not freight. Freight travel is expected to increase dramatically over the next couple years, and truck drivers already report long delays, even for the ones that take the inconvenient route up to the Blue Water to try to avoid Ambassador. The bridge is necessary at one of the busiest commercial border crossings in the world.
Plus, if you actually read the amendment, it creates a definition of "bridge" so widely defined that you could potentially be barred from building a bridge on your own property if it crosses a body of water, unless the state votes to approve it.
quote:There are modern methods of burning coal cleanly. The fear-mongering of people opposed to the expansion of the use of coal is just unscientific propaganda. They really just want an excuse to charge a big carbon tax, and keep America dependent upon foreign petroleum. What they really have at heart is a desire to restrict "other" people from having enough energy. These are the same people who want bigger government to exercise tyrannical control over the masses.
You're going to have to explain how a carbon tax would keep us using foreign oil as opposed to coal, as oil is also a carbon-based fuel source. Also, I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking, but 'clean coal' is a myth. Carbon sequestration has never been demonstrated as successful technology that can be applied en masse, and whenever the EPA comes out with new filter requirements to make smokestacks safer and release less pollution, your people have a nutty that the EPA is trying to throttle coal plants. You can't have it both ways.
I'll wait patiently for your response.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous. If Canada is really going to pay for it, then let them build it. Why does the governor of Michigan have to push for it to be built? The governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican, and I voted for him. But I still do not believe him on this issue. I think he is just pandering to some of his business cronies.
Everybody else except the one guy who makes money from the existing bridge agrees with the gov on this, but somehow Snyder's the one pandering to cronies? I guess in a sense that's true, if you define "Snyder's cronies" as the citizens of Michigan. Moroun, on the other hand, is certainly not pandering to anyone but himself.
On a related note, let me introduce you to your new best buddy, Adam Dobrin. I think you two will get along fine. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge.
Eh?
quote:Canada’s chief envoy in Michigan is taking a public role in a political debate that is playing out across the Great Lake State: whether to embrace a new bridge project between Windsor and Detroit that would broaden the most important conduit in Canadian-American trade. ... “Canada bears all costs and all liability for the project and ... Michigan bears none,” Mr. Norton told a crowd of 300 on Oct. 15 at the Crystal Gardens Banquet Center in a Detroit suburb.
“That, of course, is not what the Moroun-financed TV advertisements say. But nothing in those advertisements is true. Nothing,” he said. ... “In no developed country have I ever seen such blatant and comprehensive efforts by a single special interest to bend an entire population to its will,” he told his listeners.
“Perhaps I am just a naïve Canadian diplomat, but I find the Morouns’ willingness to spend any amount of money to tell any lie to be both shocking and reprehensible.”
What Canadian officials tell their own people about funding a new bridge seems to be different from what Mich. governor Rick Snyder is telling Michiganders. And as a Michigan resident, it does not seem to me that the majority are in favor of a new bridge. If they are, then having it put to a vote will not stop the building of the bridge, would it? So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Lyrhawn, America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil. Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problematic thing about "putting it to a vote," Ron, is that people like Moroun who are willing to spend a great deal of money to propagate a lie can pretty much buy the votes of the ignorant and misled. And once people have been misled, they become emotionally invested in their false position. As an example: are you willing to concede that, yes, Canadian leaders have said they will pay for the bridge?
And no, carbon taxes do not come down harder on coal plants because people believe coal cannot be burned cleanly; they come down harder on plants which produce more atmospheric carbon, and coal plants -- because coal cannot currently be affordably burned cleanly -- produce a great deal of atmospheric carbon.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Becoming like California, where a referendum is needed to get anything done.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What Canadian officials tell their own people about funding a new bridge seems to be different from what Mich. governor Rick Snyder is telling Michiganders. And as a Michigan resident, it does not seem to me that the majority are in favor of a new bridge. If they are, then having it put to a vote will not stop the building of the bridge, would it? So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Lyrhawn, America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil. Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside.
Ron, this is either a lie or an implicit admission of ignorance. The United States does not have "centuries" of coal, you have in fact hit "peak coal", you cannot extract any additional energy whatsoever from every additional tonne of coal mined, because of the increased energy cost for extracting that tonne of coal.
The energy mined from American coal has flatlined, coal extraction has gone up, and significantly so, exponentially in fact. But there is no additional energy to be gained.
Thus the United States cannot maintain complex society from the non existent energy surplus from coal. Which as other have pointed out, cannot be burned cleanly and still puts significant amount of pollutants into the water tables, such as mercury.
Thus why the United States needs to invest into upgrading the energy grid and to acquire alternate energy from renewables and from nuclear power (which also has problems with 'peak uranium' but can be put off for longer through proven technology, such as thorium processing).
The point is Ron, you already have to import more oil from foreign sources because coal isn't keeping up the slack but is actually falling relative to American energy consumption. So Green energy is needed to meet the difference, there's simply no way out of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom and Blayne, the "facts" you cite are untrue. I stated it the way it is. Factually.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom and Blayne, the "facts" you cite are untrue. I stated it the way it is. Factually.
Except mine I know for a fact; here's a video that should be sufficiently enlightening: Link he gives his sources on his webpage and they're first tier sources.
Energy Returned On Energy In is a real concept Ron regularly used by the industry itself (EROEI).
So I have provided my sources Ron, I trust you will provide yours?
The final ore composition for copper for instance, is actually down to 0.02% per tonne or earth extracted. It costs massive amounts in energy to extract that pittance of copper, same for coal as we're no longer mining anthracite coal but now down to essentially bittuminous. Coal production gorws by 2% per year since the 1940's, but the energy extracted has ceased its growth, this is a fact Ron.
quote: Taking reserves into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe.
So there you have it.
[ November 04, 2012, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Actually, to me this is a reason to keep the electoral college (although I'm in favor of a somewhat modified version).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus and others, let's use a little common sense here.
1. If no public funds from Michigan will be used to build the bridge, and the whole thing will be paid for by Canada, then proposal six would not stop it. The proposal does not prohibit the building of the bridge, it only prohibits expenditure of public funds without a vote of the people statewide.
2. If the majority of Michigan voters are in favor of a new bridge, as someone has claimed here, then again, proposal six would not stop the bridge, since only a majority vote would be required to approve the bridge.
I have a copy of the ballot before me. Here is the complete text of proposal six:
quote:PROPOSAL 12-6 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS
The proposal would:
* Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
* Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."
Should this proposal be approved?
So you see, like I said, the only prohibition is against spending Michigan taxpayers' money to bring about construction of the new bridge. If Governor Snyder is telling the truth that no Michigan taxpayers' money will be used to build the bridge, and it will all be paid for by Canada, then proposal six would not stop it. What would be the problem?
One thing that might be noted, is that the proposal stipulates that the bridge must be approved not only statewide, but also by the local municipality where the bridge would be built. In other words, not only must voters statewide approve the bridge, also the majority of voters in Detroit must approve of the bridge--since it is to be located in their city. But that only seems reasonable. It is the people of Detroit who would be most impacted by the construction, etc. Also the statewide voters can veto the bridge if they do not want to finance a new bridge in Detroit.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Actually, to me this is a reason to keep the electoral college (although I'm in favor of a somewhat modified version).
I can see the pro argument, that it ensures we don't go through weeks of counting and waiting after the election to see the final results.
But their argument, and often mine, would be that it doesn't reflect the final will of the people. To me that still gets the greatest weight. Not including the half dozen or so other good arguments in favor of getting rid of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, one additional consideration in eliminating the Electoral College is that it is the final vote of the Electoral College that really, legally establishes the winner of the presidential and vice-presidential contests. So if we do away with the Electoral College, at what point do we say the election is a done deal? 12:00 noon on the day following the election, when hopefully all the ballots have been counted? This could be complicated if there are serious challenges and legal wrangling over recounts like there were in the 2000 election. And as I think you are raising, the question also remains about who would pronounce the election a done deal? Who would be given the authority?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whenever they finish counting the votes. Waiting doesn't bother me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ron Lambert, are you under the impression that you've given an example of what Canadian officials tell their own people?
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What Canadian officials tell their own people ...
Give an example of this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Use the same voting system as nearly any other country?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Cute. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ron Lambert, are you under the impression that you've given an example of what Canadian officials tell their own people?
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What Canadian officials tell their own people ...
Give an example of this.
It's a very straightforward question.
Watch him never answer it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Virginia seems to have shifted blue Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mucus, Canadian officials have emphasized to their own people in articles I have read that Canada was not going to pay the full cost of building the bridge, and the money extended by Canada to Michigan to cover Michigan's required contribution for matching funds (from the U.S. government) would be a loan, to be repaid from tolls. Later it was claimed that this was not a loan, they called it something else, but still it is to be repaid from tolls. According to Crain's Detroit Business:
quote:Instead, Canada would pay any of the state's capital costs for the Detroit River International Crossing that are not covered by the private sector or the U.S. government, up to the $550 million limit.
Those costs then would be recovered by Canada assuming Michigan's share of bridge toll revenue for as long as it took to pay off the capital costs.
Here is the breakdown of expenses for the bridge according to Crain's Detroit Business:
quote:The overall price of DRIC is $5.3 billion, and that includes Canadian highway work linked to DRIC but not officially part of the partnership's work. The work on the bridge, plazas, interchanges and approaches is estimated at $2.1 billion. It's broken down by MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] as:
• U.S. bridge and approach: $501.6 million.
• Canadian bridge and approach: $447.4 million.
• U.S. toll plaza: $150.6 million.
• U.S. General Services Administration plaza: $270 million.
Let me just reiterate the logic you have not responded to:
If Michigan taxpayers will not be paying any of the cost of building the bridge, and it is all going to be paid by Canada, then why should proponents of the bridge care if there is a constitutional amendment that requires a majority vote before any taxpayer money can be used for the project? Proposal 6, which I quoted earlier, only prohibits expenditure of taxpayer money; it does not prohibit building the bridge.
And if the majority of Detroiters and Michigan voters statewide are in favor of the bridge, then when there was a vote, they would approve it, wouldn't they?
Something that costs $5.3 billion should be brought to the vote of the people. Why should anyone disagree with that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Honestly, I could care less about the internal politics of Michigan. What I am curious about is that you've claimed that Canadian officials have said one thing to Americans and one thing to Canadians.
For example, "Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous" and now you've quoted something from your Crain's newspaper which indeed confirms that Canada will be paying for the bridge. I fail to see a contradiction here.
Are you disturbed about the prospect of motorists paying tolls to the Canadian government? What gives?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, the proposal as worded would prevent Michigan from expending "state funds or resources," even if those were to be paid back from Canada. As written, it would not permit anyone in Michigan to help coordinate the building of the bridge.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, Canadian authorities--at least in some reports--have said they would give money to Michigan to cover Michigan's required contribution to qualify for matching funds from the U.S government (up to $550 million), this is why earlier this year it was being called a loan. But since then they have been spinning it, saying it was not a loan, because the money would be paid to the proposed joint authority, and Canada would be paid back for this from tolls. From the same article in Crains I referenced earlier:
quote:"Let me be very clear — the additional $550 million is not a loan," Chuck Strahl, Canada's minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, wrote in a statement provided to Crain's this week.
The money would go to a joint authority that would be set up to operate the bridge, and Canada would have an increased equity stake in the authority while the money is paid back.
They must realize that they are quibbling, and that there really would be Michigan taxpayer funds used somewhere in the project, or they would not be acting as if Proposal 6 would prevent the building of the bridge. Because, as I have pointed out several times, the proposal only prohibits use of taxpayer funds, it does not prohibit the building of the bridge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The proposal prohibits the use of any state resources, which includes employee time and stationery. They couldn't even make a phone call to Canada to ask about the status of the project.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, that sounds like one of those opportunities to employ lawyers to argue over exactly what is meant by the term "state resources." You can't just assume it means whatever you arbitrarily say it means. And does it prohibit use of City of Detroit resources, as distinct from State of Michigan resources?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You probably shouldn't vote for it until you can answer those questions, Ron.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I see Ron has entirely abandoned the environmentalism fight as unwinnable and unspinnable.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, what are you talking about? What environmentalism fight? I do still question global warming, especially the brand that would blame it on human activity, if that is what you are referring to. But this does not seem like anything currently at issue. It would, I think, greatly help the environment if Obama were cast out of the White House.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Blayne, what are you talking about?
Do you simply not recall him talking to you about coal and oil issues? It happened literally on this page.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Apparently I have knocked him... *puts on sunglasses* outcoaled. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You probably shouldn't vote for it until you can answer those questions, Ron.
+1.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Watch out, Tom. I am coming to Madison tomorrow. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Apparently I have knocked him... *puts on sunglasses* outcoaled.
: snort :
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is my prediction for the presidential election: Romney will win 56% of the popular vote, and over 300 electoral votes. He will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I also predict that the large margin of victory will only make Obama madder, and he may actually refuse to give a concession speech, telling the media it is because he regards the election process as corrupt and racist. He will bitterly denounce the Tea Party and all other conservatives, and will try to put much of the blame for his defeat on Fox News Channel.
This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Once Romney has been inaugurated, I believe that the FBI and other investigative agencies will be able to discover and reveal all the dark secrets Obama has been covering up--and some of them will be real doozies.
Come on, Blayne, Samprimary, Orincoro, TomDavidson, et. al. Let's see your predictions.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Was that all sarcastic Ron?
Anyway...Nate Silver just made some big shifts towards Obama tonight. The biggest one being flipping Florida for him. But by the narrowest of narrow percentages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't do predictions; I'm not as courageous as you are. Although having never once successfully predicted something despite constantly making predictions may have built up your tolerance for being wrong far beyond that of normal humans.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is my prediction for the presidential election: Romney will win 56% of the popular vote, and over 300 electoral votes. He will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.
This should be added to Samprimary's list.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I actually think the part that follows is even crazier.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Someday I would like to understand why certain conservative types seem to fantasize about impending race/class/partisan violence or even warfare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is my prediction for the presidential election: Romney will win 56% of the popular vote, and over 300 electoral votes. He will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I also predict that the large margin of victory will only make Obama madder, and he may actually refuse to give a concession speech, telling the media it is because he regards the election process as corrupt and racist. He will bitterly denounce the Tea Party and all other conservatives, and will try to put much of the blame for his defeat on Fox News Channel.
This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Once Romney has been inaugurated, I believe that the FBI and other investigative agencies will be able to discover and reveal all the dark secrets Obama has been covering up--and some of them will be real doozies.
Come on, Blayne, Samprimary, Orincoro, TomDavidson, et. al. Let's see your predictions.
My prediction is that literally everything you said is wrong because you are always wrong and make terrible delusional predictions, and Obama will win it in a EV crush somewhere in the general region of 304 votes (like let's say tentatively 292-314, but I have only gambled on Obama, not on how many EV's he's going to get, so it could vary outside that range I guess) and about 51%-ish of the popular vote and Romney will concede before we even get to go to sleep, because we will have known that Obama won well before we get the West Coast counted up, with a bunch of pundits just trying to stand around not really talking that heavily about what we knew since OH went blue.
I also predict less than favorable odds that you will openly admit your wrongness to me, as promised, about your prediction that Obama would end his presidency impeached with the help of democrats in congress. But not impossible odds. You may just not be a coward about that.
In the like disastermiracle chance that Romney wins (he's not) I would attest that Obama would prove most of your predictions wrong openly by providing a concession speech and stepping down and be done about it and your calls to violence thing wouldn't happen and there would be no FBI landmark discovery validating your various legitimately honestly crazy conspiracy theories about Obama's plan to turn the US into a third world nation for whichever nefarious undetailed reasons you have alluded to, but since Obama is going to win we will have no way to prove this to you but that's okay I don't care.
Guantanamo's prison camp will probably shut down in the next four years.
The next Republican presidential primary will aspire very hard to be as completely bonkers as this last one.
Homophobic laws will continue to bleed away as we approach nationwide acceptance of gays as human beings who deserve marriage too, and the GOP will slowly and carefully back away from their strategy of pandering to old homophobes becomes a politically untenable association with any demographic that won't be dying off in the next 15 years or so.
There might be (50% chance??) another hard crash precipitated by some sort of an asian economic meltdown but eh I'm sure that will be obama's fault too, because republicans. It may hit us mildly or pretty damn brutally if it does happen who even knows. Yes you can tell this is an amazingly courageous prediction (thing might happen! thing might be big, or not! or not happen at all!)
The election will cause you to lose one of your precious few remaining marbles and there will either be complete radio silence or even more disjointedly delusional rambling over time from you.
TomDavidson will write a post that infuriates Dagonee. It will probably have a smiley face.
OSC will write a terrible political article.
Characters who disagree with the sheriff in Walking Dead will die. E-viewership of the show will rebound a bit after I tell people that the show's absolute utter stupidest character that we all hate has died oh my god spoiler alert. I will quit watching like a month from now even if the new season is great because I'm a fickle person.
TomDavidson will find faith with the Russian Orthodox Church before rediscovering his spiritual divine at The Great Stupa of Dharmakaya.
Miss Jones will turn out to have been a robot after all. The Wandering Eye story will be a cover.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dems will retain the Senate with 53 seats. Maybe 54.
They'll also pick up 15 in the House.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I miss dagonee.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I miss dagonee.
Me too.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, good guy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll predict Obama will win with 290 electoral votes. I'll give Romney Virginia, but Obama Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Dems end up with 53 Senate seats, also gaining a handful of Congressional ones (14).
Liberal talking head will talk about how this means Obama has a mandate for his policies, and that Republicans have been slapped for their four years of obstructionism. That the party is becoming radical and marginal and will need to reinvent themselves.
Fox News will try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Conservative talking heads will predict another financial collapse because Romney wasn't elected, and so businesses will be afraid to invest. Also how it's hard to to unseat a sitting president, and this narrow victory is a warning from the American people that Obama does not have a mandate. They will ask what Romney's future will consist of, and I think it will be a departure from politics.
Maybe he'll govern Utah, seeing as how we already do all the crazy stuff he's promised to do, he can focus instead of getting us solvent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That'll be the immediate aftermath, but I think there will be dissertations written on what happens in the GOP for the next two years if Romney loses. Lloyds of London is giving better odds of Romney running again in 2016 than either Biden or Clinton.
Will he run again and blame the far right for his loss? Will the far right rend their garments and blame Romney's lack of true conservative bonafides? A civil war is brewing on the right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:
Come on, Blayne, Samprimary, Orincoro, TomDavidson, et. al. Let's see your predictions.
Ron you had stated that my post on page 22 to be "untrue" and that your post to be "factual".
Here is your post in question:
quote: Lyrhawn, America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil. Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside.
Here is the post, let us break down to its principle claims that you have asserted to be factual.
1. "America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries."
Truth-o-meter says... FALSE! As explained earlier in the article and the video I linked, this isn't true. In 1997 American energy from the coal it mined peaked and has declined ever since.
This means absolutely, that America cannot turn to coal to sustain its energy requirements, and will mean having to import coal and petroleum from foreign nations to meet the difference. By your standards switching to coal is more UnAmerican than switching to alternate energy and fuel sources which would reduce American dependence on fossil fuels considerably.
2. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal.
I'll rate this as largely incorrect; the United States has the largest share of coal at 22% with Russia and China at 14 and 12 percent. However if we compare it to Saudi and Arabian oil, their proven reserves stand at 55% of the world's total supply, this is more then double than the American relative share of coal.
3. "Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil."
False. The goal is to replace the energy from coal with the energy from renewables and other 'green' energy, including hydroplants and nuclear. With sufficient investment and planning nothing stops this from happening at the sametime. Thereby preempting to have to fiddle with imports/exports at all.
As pointed out above, you are doubly false because further reliance on coal will just simply force you to import more from Russia/China to make up the energy deficit. Your trading one geopolitical foe for another?
4. "Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. "
Carbon taxes come down harder because coal is one of the worst widespread industrial process for generating pollution and other harmful byproducts to both the environment and human life. Have you seen all of the absolute horror stories of children born with mental or physical disfigurations from mercury in the water tables (from coal)?
Which to mention, clean coal technology does not address mercury pollution from coal plants.
Part of the problem is that even if you managed to significantly mitigate the greenhouse gas emmissions from carbon sequestration you still end up with massive pollution, radionuclides and harmful byproducts from unsustainable strip mining for coal. Its saddeningly easy to find stories of how strip mining for coal has ruined the quality of life of communities affected by such mining.
Furthermore, clean coal technology as it exists only has come into being as a result of EPA regulations. Meaning that without the current drive for green technologies and renewables coal companies wouldn't be trying desperately hard to stay relevant. So if your going to harp on clean coal then you must acknowledged the role environmental regulations and activism has played.
5. "There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside."
True! We have a winner! Except... Ironically...
You're still wrong because you have the direction of implications wrong, it is overwhelmingly republicans who throw away and ignore the science. In fact if I recall Georgia I believe (the state) has made it illegal for scientists to report their findings regarding global warming; the words and reports of professionals, not politicians is being ignored by the GOP in that State.
Will you concede Ron?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe he'll govern Utah, seeing as how we already do all the crazy stuff he's promised to do, he can focus instead of getting us solvent.
Oh, please, no.
Of course, I don't think it'll happen. I think he was only interested in being governor of Massachusetts to serve as a springboard for running for president, and I don't think being governor of Utah would help with that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Romney and Obama tie in Dixville Notch at 5-5.
Obama wins Hart's location with 23 votes to Romney's 9 and Gary Johnson's 1.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My prediciton: Obama wins every state he carried in '08, sans FL, IN, and NC for 303 electoral votes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's my guess as well. Though he may yet pull Florida out. It's been moving his way over the last two weeks, slowly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm an idealistic nutter, so I'm going for he carries Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I predict it will come out 290-248, for Obama. I painted Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia red. I know Virginia looks likely for Obama, but I just have a hunch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe he'll govern Utah, seeing as how we already do all the crazy stuff he's promised to do, he can focus instead of getting us solvent.
Oh, please, no.
Of course, I don't think it'll happen. I think he was only interested in being governor of Massachusetts to serve as a springboard for running for president, and I don't think being governor of Utah would help with that.
May he be called to be *your* stake president!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want like a book of cutting mormon curses like that
/edit I also predict that fox news channel's ratings will spike slightly after romney's concession as people dial in to drink their delicious tears Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: May he be called to be *your* stake president!
May he be called to the nursery for the next five years.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I just thought these two comments should be juxtaposed:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Someday I would like to understand why certain conservative types seem to fantasize about impending race/class/partisan violence or even warfare.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A civil war is brewing on the right.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The comparison is useful. One side is speaking literally, and the other metaphorically.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Winter is coming.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The civil war being spoken about is kind of a real thing, yanno. There's a bit of momentum at issue in the GOP where you have the oldschoolers very direly worried about the spiral effect drawing the GOP hard to the right (where it is dominated and commanded by wedge issues like gays and abortion and a fanatical opposition to tax hikes, even for the most extremely rich) and intent on getting the GOP back to the big tent idea for the sake of its own survival; but they are contested by the tea party glory day folks who are intent on keeping the momentum exactly the way they want it.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Someday I would like to understand why certain conservative types seem to fantasize about impending race/class/partisan violence or even warfare.
They got blue balls at the end of the Cold War when they didn't get to join the Wolverines in Red Dawn, so they are falling back on the southern Lost Cause?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I just thought these two comments should be juxtaposed:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Someday I would like to understand why certain conservative types seem to fantasize about impending race/class/partisan violence or even warfare.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A civil war is brewing on the right.
You should take this to its over-literal conclusion, man. Lyrhawn wasn't just saying that Republicans will be killing each other, he was saying that they'll be doing it with rifle muskets and bayonets and mounted cavalry.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: You should take this to its over-literal conclusion, man. Lyrhawn wasn't just saying that Republicans will be killing each other, he was saying that they'll be doing it with rifle muskets and bayonets and mounted cavalry.
I wasn't making any conclusion, just juxtaposing. As Juxtapose (natch) pointed out: the comments are literal vs. metaphorical. But that's exactly why I thought putting them together was apropos.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: May he be called to be *your* stake president!
May he be called to the nursery for the next five years.
May he home teach your family, and be very active about doing so!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm watching the election coverage on MSNBC, anyone else watching?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I refuse to think about the election until tomorrow morning.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Wait, there's an election on?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
We're electing a new president of Hatrack. The candidates are Baldar and Cedrios.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
But aren't they the same person?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
No, you and I are the same person.
Maybe we are also Baldar and Cedrios.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I refuse to think about the election until tomorrow morning.
Sounds like someone had a little recall vote crush
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
There are some numbers from KE, 4000 pop vote for Romney and a 1000 for Obama. Good luck Romney!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: We're electing a new president of Hatrack. The candidates are Baldar and Cedrios.
Coincidentally I was voted President of Hatrack last time, and now that I'm moderator, I figure I should just declare a state of emergency, remove term limits and cancel the elections.
Don't worry, it's for your protection from counter-revolutionaries and socialist (social-media) elements.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: But aren't they the same person?
That's just what the mainstream media wants you to think!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Coincidentally I was voted President of Hatrack last time, and now that I'm moderator, I figure I should just declare a state of emergency, remove term limits and cancel the elections.
Don't worry, it's for your protection from counter-revolutionaries and socialist (social-media) elements.
Why don't you just build a Death Star while you're at it, BlackBlade? Or should I say . . . DarthBlade?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I'm currently watching the election coverage on MSNBC and occasionally flipping to FOX when I need a good laugh.
MSNBC is doing a good job of reporting the actual, non-biased facts of the race so far while FOX just seems to be grasping at straws.
In Northern VA where I live, the general mood seems to be leaning towards Obama but it seems that the state will go to Romney?
Anyone else have any updates to report?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Comparing to 2008 so far only Indiana went red.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Damn you florida, making me care about your swampy tracks of land for once aside from being that place where my grand parents go to for blue berry maple syrup :argh:
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Romney's odds on Intrade have finally collapsed. Well below 10% now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, Blayne, blueberries and maple syrup aren't native to Florida, particularly. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah, but its the best maple syrup I've ever had, blueberry flavoured and I've only ever had it when my grandparents bring it back.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I....The best maple syrup you, a Canadian, have ever had is blueberry-flavored stuff from Florida? I don't know how to parse that. *shudder*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I....The best maple syrup you, a Canadian, have ever had is blueberry-flavored stuff from Florida? I don't know how to parse that. *shudder*
Like saying the best cheddar cheese he's had was from Chili's?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Btw congrats on your 51st state.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
51st state? Has the vote for Puerto Rico come in?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Called it. From Fox News,
"No clear mandate!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Puerto Rico's vote is complicated this year. It's not a simple YES/NO on statehood. There are two parts to the question.
And, even if they chose statehood in that vote, it would still have to face political hurdles in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. I seem to recall reading that Alaska voted for statehood almost a decade before they were officially admitted.
Personally, I'd love to see Puerto Rico join, if they elect to. I think it's unlikely, though.
EDIT: If anyone knows any sources on this vote, I'm interested.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They have to vote YES/NO on keeping the status the same, and then they have three choices if the NO votes win.
Right now it's 49/49 on the YES/NO. And 50% on statehood.
But I have no idea what congress will do if it passes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OH GOD AN OPENLY GAY SENATOR
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Did you have Al Frank before?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Al Frank isn't gay. He just plays one on TV.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Fox called OH for Obama. He's now above 99% on Intrade. OVER.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
NBC calls it for obama too
surprising nobody who follows Nate Silver
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
election over
gg
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Where's Ron?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Destineer--FNC just called the election for Obama. That is a real shame. The Obama campaign is not conceding yet, they say, until more of the Ohio vote is in. But it looks like it would be very hard for Romney to pull out a miracle victory.
I am disappointed that so many voters are so shallow-minded and gullible. Obama was never qualified to be president in the first place, and people with real intelligence did recognize that fact from the beginning. Those who voted for him, especially this time around, will bear responsibility for the harm he is going to do in to our country in a second term with his incompentence, amateurishness, and terribly wrong, exteme ideas. I regret that those of us who are more sensible will have to suffer along with the foolish majority. They have brought real evil down on our heads. American will change forever for ill in its basic character.
Those who have been calling for the elimination of the Electoral College might consider that it looks like Romney may still win the majority of the popular vote.
Some of the commentators on FNC observed that Superstorm Sandy may have been the deciding factor, because the momentum towards Romney seemed to halt when the nation saw President Obama touring the disaster-hit area in New Jersey with Chris Christie. That gave the false appearance that Obama might be able to work with Republicans (when he has been nothing but divisive and totally partisan before now). Again, too many people make their judgment based upon superficial appearances, and do not seriously consider the in-depth real issues.
At least with a victory, Obama will be less tempted to stir up his more fanatical followers to violence. But his camapaign of lies and slander have created a large amount of hatred among his followers against conservatives and Republicans. This will undoubtably find expression in the coming months.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At least with a victory, Obama will be less tempted to stir up his more fanatical followers to violence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Running total of successful Ron predictions: 0. Running total of Ron predictions: 32.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Destineer--FNC just called the election for Obama. That is a real shame. The Obama campaign is not conceding yet, they say, until more of the Ohio vote is in. But it looks like it would be very hard for Romney to pull out a miracle victory.
I am disappointed that so many voters are so shallow-minded and gullible. Obama was never qualified to be president in the first place, and people with real intelligence did recognize that fact from the beginning. Those who voted for him, especially this time around, will bear responsibility for the harm he is going to do in to our country in a second term with his incompentence, amateurishness, and terribly wrong, exteme ideas. I regret that those of us who are more sensible will have to suffer along with the foolish majority. They have brought real evil down on our heads. American will change forever for ill in its basic character.
Those who have been calling for the elimination of the Electoral College might consider that it looks like Romney may still win the majority of the popular vote.
Some of the commentators on FNC observed that Superstorm Sandy may have been the deciding factor, because the momentum towards Romney seemed to halt when the nation saw President Obama touring the disaster-hit area in New Jersey with Chris Christie. That gave the false appearance that Obama might be able to work with Republicans (when he has been nothing but divisive and totally partisan before now). Again, too many people make their judgment based upon superficial appearances, and do not seriously consider the in-depth real issues.
At least with a victory, Obama will be less tempted to stir up his more fanatical followers to violence. But his camapaign of lies and slander have created a large amount of hatred among his followers against conservatives and Republicans. This will undoubtably find expression in the coming months.
Quoted for posterity
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: The Obama campaign is not conceding yet, they say, until more of the Ohio vote is in.
highlighted for posterity
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
(YAWN)
I am getting tired of extremist thinking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is my prediction for the presidential election: Romney will win 56% of the popular vote, and over 300 electoral votes. He will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.
This should be added to Samprimary's list.
It's faster than 1844
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At least with a victory, Obama will be less tempted to stir up his more fanatical followers to violence.
He's probably still a little tempted, though.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: The Obama campaign is not conceding yet, they say, until more of the Ohio vote is in.
highlighted for posterity
That must have just been a typo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
legal marijuana in CO, medical marijuana in MA, gay marriage, gay marriage, gay marriage, gay marriage, and maybe gay marriage, Duckworth wins, Akin the worthless troglodyte goblin kicked out, 'gift from god' rapebaby senator man follows him, Warren wins, obama wins, Florida is terrible, nate silver is right, i'm going out for margaritas, goodnight
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One prediction I made unquestionably stands up (though I still maintain that most of my other predictions will yet come true): Democracy as we practice it in America works best when voter turnout is light, and only the people who are really informed and really care turn out to vote; when there is a large turnout, the decision made by the electorate is almost always wrong.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Oh, right, that was a Freudian slip. I meant to say that the Romney campaign was not conceding yet, until more of the vote from Ohio is in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Democracy as we practice it in America works best when voter turnout is light,
Newsflash: you're wrong about this too
You're basically saying "democracy only works when it works for me when only pretty much a bunch of paleolithic fundamentalists vote and the young people all stay home HMF"
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No Sam, Democracy only works when it is mainly the wise who vote, and fools stay home.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One prediction I made unquestionably stands up (though I still maintain that most of my other predictions will yet come true): Democracy as we practice it in America works best when voter turnout is light, and only the people who are really informed and really care turn out to vote; when there is a large turnout, the decision made by the electorate is almost always wrong.
Elitist much?
God help us if the new standard for reliable elections is making sure only the few and the smart vote.
"All you stupid people just stay home so the rest of us can get on with ruling you." Sign me up for this.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:No Sam, Democracy only works when it is mainly the wise who vote, and fools stay home.
I would wager heavily that level of education directly correlates with how likely you are to have voted Obama.
So I'd actually agree with you, but perhaps not in the way you were hoping.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Nate Silver 50/50!? Looks like he polled it off! Every state correct this time on the presidential vote (if Florida and Virginia both remain blue).
How'd he do on Senate?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Since this was brought up earlier, some might be interested to know that all six ballot proposals in Michigan were defeated. That includes all of the attempts to add things to the state constitution. Apparently the majority of voters felt that it was unnecessary and improper to try to add things to the constitution as amendments, which would have made them harder to change later. "Hands off our constitution," was a slogan used in many ads. So I guess Detroit will get a second bridge to Canada. We'll see if it doesn't cost us anything.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No Sam, Democracy only works when it is mainly the wise who vote, and fools stay home.
That is not democracy by any definition of the word.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The shallow minded and gullible Ron proves how shallow minded and gullible he is by making terrible predictions.
Immediately after being proven shallow minded and gullible with his completely wrong impossible prediction... By hammering about how shallow minded and gullible voters who are not him are and democracy is obviously better off if you plebes stayed home and left democracy to the righteous and informed, like Ron.
Who was so informed, in fact, that he never gets his predictions right, because they are all delusional.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I thought Romney's concession speech was nice.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I liked it too. He seems happier.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
A small bubble to burst to the rest of the nation, but a rather volatile for my county. Joe Arpiao has defended his position as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. I really thought we had a chance this year.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah, well. Arizona. South of the west. Can't be helped (yet)
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Also Michelle bachmann may lose.
Please.
Please.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The shallow minded and gullible Ron proves how shallow minded and gullible he is by making terrible predictions.
Dude, have you read the TOS lately?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Multipost
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Ganesh is false. I have sex. The literal reading of the terms of service means literally nothing. Threaten me with it again. Ron Lambert is deluded.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Boy, when I start threatening you, you'll know. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am soooo glad I decided to read the last page of this thread...very entertaining!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I liked it too. He seems happier.
Yeah, but that's got to be a veneer. There's a certain sadness at sacrificing years of work in pursuit of a goal...
(I'm not saying it was all wasted.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Nate Silver 50/50!? Looks like he polled it off! Every state correct this time on the presidential vote (if Florida and Virginia both remain blue).
How'd he do on Senate?
Remains to be seen. Thus far he's been perfect, but Montana, North Dakota and Nevada are all still up for grabs, though with 2% of the vote left, it looks like the Dem in North Dakota is going to pull off a shocking upset victory. We'll see.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
In regard to the Michigan ballot proposals, I was premature when I said all six were voted down. Proposals 2-6, which were attempts to amend the state constitution, all were defeated. But the first one, which affirms the governor's authority to appoint an emergency manager for a city that is unable to meet its financial obligations, who can invalidate previous contracts with unions to gain control of expenses, was approved. This is an affirmation of a law that was passed a couple of years ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In regard to the Michigan ballot proposals, I was premature when I said all six were voted down. Proposals 2-6, which were attempts to amend the state constitution, all were defeated. But the first one, which affirms the governor's authority to appoint an emergency manager for a city that is unable to meet its financial obligations, who can invalidate previous contracts with unions to gain control of expenses, was approved. This is an affirmation of a law that was passed a couple of years ago.
Not yet it hasn't.
The Free Press has 80% of precincts reporting and Prop 1 is 52-48 No/Yes.
I hope that trend stays. It's an ill-defined, terrible law.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Those who have been calling for the elimination of the Electoral College might consider that it looks like Romney may still win the majority of the popular vote.
Does this count as a new prediction? At the moment President Obama is about 1 1/2 million votes ahead.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fun Fact: Florida still hasn't been called, and Obama still has more electoral votes than G. W. Bush got in either of his elections. So that means Obama has a mandate, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nope. McConnell has already released a statement saying that regardless of how many votes he gets, he didn't run a campaign of ideas, so people weren't voting for an agenda.
No mandate.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dear Mr. & Mr. Koch.
You can not buy our Government.
Thanks for spending your money on the effort. It sure helped the economy somehow.
Cynically yours.
Ms. Liberty
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's clear you don't understand how predictions *work*, Ron-when you predict something will happen by such time and it doesn't, that prediction doesn't have a chance to be later proven right-it's already been wrong.
But listen, whatever you do, don't let this occasion of being hugely, comically wrong (a prediction multiple people here, whom you scorned for making it, made) lead to you reevaluate your thinking on politics or your own predictive ability.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:As of Wednesday morning, 54% voted to change the island's status. As to the second question, 61% want statehood, 33% are for sovereign free association, and about 5.5% are for independence.
Those results are with nearly 96% of polling stations reported.
It's unlikely that last 4% will change the results, which means the referendum officially passes and Puerto Rico votes to become a state.
Polls had this at a dead heat going into tonight, so this is actually a tiny bit of a surprise. Independentists were pushing hard on the YES issue to try to keep the status quo because they knew it was rigged in favor of statehood (and it was).
Now I think it goes to Congress. If I read correctly, Congress can either use this vote as a pretext to admit them as a state, or, more likely, they'll order a second straight up or down vote to confirm the choice. It's not clear under those circumstances what would happen, but it's entirely possible they'll confirm the vote.
Then Congress has to decide whether or not to support the measure. And I have no idea which way they will go. The media isn't talking about this on the front page yet, and I'm not sure when or if they will.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, there's been literally zero commentary that I am aware of at the national level regarding opinions on Puerto Rico becoming a state. I think both parties will immediately evaluate whether allowing Puerto Rico to become a state benefits them, and start stumping/voting accordingly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which is funny, because all it means is that the Democrats just have to support it and the Republicans will automatically reject it; meaning PR will even if it leaned republican before, will rapidly shift Democrat and eventually enter as a Democratic state.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No Sam, Democracy only works when it is mainly the wise who vote, and fools stay home.
As god lets it rain on saints and sinners alike, so too the laws of the land must apply to the wise and the wooden-headed alike.
Further, since it is a government of and by the people, the government must include your fools with your wise men.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Which is funny, because all it means is that the Democrats just have to support it and the Republicans will automatically reject it; meaning PR will even if it leaned republican before, will rapidly shift Democrat and eventually enter as a Democratic state.
Not exactly. If Puerto Rico was reliably conservative, you would find Democrats arguing against it, I'm trying to think of the stupid lie they'd hide behind, but I can't think disingenuously very well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But I can!
"PR shouldn't be a state yet because it isn't clear if this vote clearly and accurately reflects the PR people; they should have another vote to make sure."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's been guessed from the start that that is probably exactly what Obama and Congress will say. And it's unclear that it wins a straight up or down referendum, which, to my mind, makes it a pretty good idea to hold one.
After that, Obama has said he'll support it. PR is a heavily socially conservative Catholic territory, which suggest rich ground for Republicans, despite the Hispanic problem.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No Sam, Democracy only works when it is mainly the wise who vote, and fools stay home.
For someone who claims to understand and support democracy, you've made a flagrantly obtuse and worthlessly judgmental statement.
It's also demonstrably wrong.
Australia is a fine and functioning democracy. Their government is admirably functional. They are actually better than us in more than a number of ways and are not subject to the paralytic obstructionism and vehement partisanship that threatens to chronically stymie our legislature. In sum they represent a better approach to democracy than ours.
They have mandatory voting.
It hasn't gone wrong. It hasn't flooded the country with the 'fools' that apparently upend democracy and refuse to allow it to work.
It is a distinct and complete refutation of your elitist claim. If you want to valiantly hoist it up as yet another one of your predictions, then insofar as it is quantifiable as an actual prediction, it's wrong.
It was all wrong! Just like I guessed, you were wrong about pretty much everything. 56% of the popular vote? over 300 electoral votes? Romney will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan?
Yeah but gloating about that is less important than tackling your terrible notions about how your disappointment over this election only proves how right you are in who 'should' vote in order for democracy to 'work.'
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Dear Mr. & Mr. Koch.
You can not buy our Government.
Thanks for spending your money on the effort. It sure helped the economy somehow.
Cynically yours.
Ms. Liberty
As a Kansan, I find your cynicism amusing. They did just fine here, pushing their agenda and their favorite candidates. There is no doubt in my mind who the most influential people in this state are, and that their money makes a big impact on issues.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think both parties will immediately evaluate whether allowing Puerto Rico to become a state benefits them, and start stumping/voting accordingly.
This is sad, but probably true.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Good for Puerto Rico. I hope they are admitted into the Union without argument. They have been voting on this measure for years, and I think it is awesome they finally passed it.
And congratulations to President Obama as well. He wasn't my first choice, but I know he meant what he said last night in his acceptance speech. I hope Congress (both house and senate) will pull their heads out of their asses and start working together.
I think everyone sometimes we get too worked up over politics. I look on Facebook and see a ton of people spouting things like "RIP America" and "I should move to Texas before they leave the Union." Our nation has been around for over 200 years, and there will ALWAYS be decisions that you don't agree with. There have been some downright awful decisions made in this country before. The thing is, we always get through it and come out on top.
So even though I do not agree with some of Obama's policies, I do believe that he has America's best interests at heart.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Imagine my surprise, to see Ron not admitting that he missed HUGELY on virtually all of his predictions, as usual. But yeah, democracy would be improved if only delusional crackpots were allowed to vote.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Good for Puerto Rico. I hope they are admitted into the Union without argument. They have been voting on this measure for years, and I think it is awesome they finally passed it.
And congratulations to President Obama as well. He wasn't my first choice, but I know he meant what he said last night in his acceptance speech. I hope Congress (both house and senate) will pull their heads out of their asses and start working together.
I think everyone sometimes we get too worked up over politics. I look on Facebook and see a ton of people spouting things like "RIP America" and "I should move to Texas before they leave the Union." Our nation has been around for over 200 years, and there will ALWAYS be decisions that you don't agree with. There have been some downright awful decisions made in this country before. The thing is, we always get through it and come out on top.
So even though I do not agree with some of Obama's policies, I do believe that he has America's best interests at heart.
Cheers, Geraine. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And congratulations to President Obama as well. He wasn't my first choice, but I know he meant what he said last night in his acceptance speech.
Usually I am way way too jaded to get all swept up in ~patriotic speechification~ or whatever, but that was a hell of a speech, wannit?
He seemed like, genuinely juiced.
Hell, Romney did too. He seemed so happy. Legitimately personable. Elections these days must be such a grind that you're just riding an elated high at the end like that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I thought Romney's concession speech was extremely weak, dispassionate, and paint-by-numbers. His one chance to act like a real human being and he still read that boring thing straight from the prompter. I'd like him so much more if he'd had a meltdown. Any sort of genuine moment from him would've been good.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I feel that it was fairly genuine in appearances, I'm not disappointed in the lack of a meltdown.
I mean a good portion of the speech was either fluffing Ryan up for 2016 as designed ("I know now why you cry," says Romney to Ryan, "but it is something I can never do." He is then slowly lowered into the pool of molten metal.) or otherwise just really getting at issues of moving back to bipartisanship, which you can take and repeat endlessly to people in his party if they don't quite get where their ruthless obstructionism has gotten them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not disappointed in the lack of a meltdown in the slightest. I've just yet to see anything I'd consider 'real' from Romney. I still have no clue who the eff he is. I want him to do 60 Minutes in a few months and tell us honestly what he believes. Because it doesn't matter at this point and I'd like to know.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not disappointed in the lack of a meltdown in the slightest. I've just yet to see anything I'd consider 'real' from Romney. I still have no clue who the eff he is. I want him to do 60 Minutes in a few months and tell us honestly what he believes. Because it doesn't matter at this point and I'd like to know.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And congratulations to President Obama as well. He wasn't my first choice, but I know he meant what he said last night in his acceptance speech.
Usually I am way way too jaded to get all swept up in ~patriotic speechification~ or whatever, but that was a hell of a speech, wannit?
He seemed like, genuinely juiced.
Hell, Romney did too. He seemed so happy. Legitimately personable. Elections these days must be such a grind that you're just riding an elated high at the end like that.
It was a really good speech. It reminded me a little of the speech he gave during the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
I thought Romney was a class act in his speech as well.
I was a little confused as to why Obama would invite Romney to the White House to discuss economic policy since he had just spent a year running negative ads against it, but hey, that is politics right? Perhaps Romney can give the President some pointers on how to get Congress to play nice. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'm not disappointed in the lack of a meltdown in the slightest. I've just yet to see anything I'd consider 'real' from Romney. I still have no clue who the eff he is. I want him to do 60 Minutes in a few months and tell us honestly what he believes. Because it doesn't matter at this point and I'd like to know.
Same here. I wonder if the 47 percent video was the closest we've come to seeing the real Romney, because he was speaking behind closed doors and presumably wasn't thinking about how the general public would take it. But I don't know if it was just a different facade for a different audience.
I came to the conclusion a while back that he doesn't have any real principles, at least politically. He just really, really wants to get elected.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obama's victory speech was livestreamed, in its entirety, on mittromney.com last night. A classy gesture, I thought.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
his ability to 'etch-a-sketch' was actually pretty much the reason why he rose to the top of the republican primary system. Without blatant dishonesty and the willing capacity to reinvent yourself dependent upon the audience, no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the republican primary can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the general election (see: santorum) and no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the general election can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the republican primary (see: huntsman).
The GOP is so completely broken right now that their only hope left to the presidency comes in the form of expert and callous mendacity — a person who can expertly play its own primary and then turn around and run a completely different platform for the general election.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Obama's victory speech was livestreamed, in its entirety, on mittromney.com last night. A classy gesture, I thought.
Interesting. Agreed.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Was anyone really surprised that Obama won? I ask because a few of my older family members genuinely believed that Romney was going to win (and have been saying so for like 6 months).
And then the election ends up being a "landslide", and they act like it's this huge surprise. I never believed Romney stood a chance, personally, but that's me. Did any of you?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The polls and 'news' stations on the right side have been running sleight of hand games for months, making it appear like it was a close race. So, if that's where you get your information I can see it being a surprise.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Depends on whether you swallowed the MSM liberal bias story. A lot of people were convinced (by Fox and other conservative outlets) that the polling was all skewed democrat because of liberal bias and/or unrealistic weightings. Even the non-conservative outlets were pretending it was neck & neck.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Though I certainly saw a lot more conservative news outlets saying Romney would win, I honestly thought that it was pretty much across the board fantasy we were in a nail-biter. Everyone knew what their audience needed to hear if they were to tune in again and then just said that. Which is a really scary precedent to set when the news starts doing that, even if it's just from their pundit's speculations about a future event.
Hobbes Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
That's true. The people I mentioned only ever watch Fox, so I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's one the reasons why I see Nate Silver going 50 for 50 on statewide predictions as being on of the more important things to come out of this. I've had no doubt that President Obama was going to win pretty much the entire time, because the electoral math was so obviously in his favor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: That's true. The people I mentioned only ever watch Fox, so I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.
I'm pretty sure that people who get their information only from Fox (and have to deal with reality) live in a near permanent state of surprise/disappointment.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The election was severely corrupted by the dishonesty and unprofessionalism of the Main Stream Media, which refused to take Obama to task for his obvious miscues, such as "Fast and Furious," the terrorist attack in Benghazi and Obama's attempt for ten days afterward to characterize it as a "demonstration" against an inconsequential internet video, and Obama's lie that Romney did not call for GM and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy WITH GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES--which is pretty much what Obama did, except that he gave the car companies cash up front.
Some leftist liberals may delude themselves that they have a cause for celebration. But what is there really to celebrate? The triumph of wrong? The triumph of negative campaigning and untrue personal attacks? The triumph of a total incompetent who never so much as managed a lemonade stand over a proven professional in business?
Contemplate very carefully what the nation has let itself in for during the next four years, and see if it is really a cause for celebrating. I think this is the beginning of the end. The end of America as a nation that stands for good in the world, and the end of the world as it looks to America for leadership. I am afraid there may be no recovery from this. We are heading downhill, and it is permanent. This time, we have finally gone too far. Woe to the next generation--if there is one. The Lord will come within nine years.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wow. Just read OSC's post-election essay and, as usual these past few years, I'm really kind of sorry I did.
Edited to add: Never mind, Ron just summed it up, but without as much anti-media vitriol.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Wow. Just read OSC's post-election essay and, as usual these past few years, I'm really kind of sorry I did.
Indeed. From the title I thought it was going to be a let's-all-come-together article in the spirit of Romney's concession speech. It wasn't.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The sky is always falling over Ron Lambert's head.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note another prediction, tucked in among the usual Ron-crap: the Lord will come within 9 years.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
The Benghazi attacks - death toll potentially attributable to Obama administration incompetence: 4 people.
The Iraq-war - death toll potentially attributable to Bush administration incompetence: 100,000+ people (including 4,487 Americans)
As such, OSC (and Ron Lambert) *of course* finds it an outrage that there was a reelection of.... Obama.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let's take them one by one, shall we?
First, please come up with a new word for news sources you don't like. Last night's top cable news shows were CNN (8.836 million total viewers), FOX News (8.708 million total viewers) and MSNBC (4.604 million total viewers). FOX IS PART OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. You can't pretend to be the unheard underdog when you're the second (and occasionally top) news network on the air.
"Fast and Furious" has been explained, you just don't like the answer. The report was released, some top ATF officials were punished or fired. There's no evidence that Holder knew about it (the program predated him, from the Bush years). Withholding documents was a dumb move (unless there were reasons we don't know yet) but those documents were provided to the investigating committee (several are quoted in the report) so if there were any smoking guns in there, they're out.
Benghazi was a fustercluck, but it wasn't the malicious, Obama-wants-our-people-to-die story FOX (and, sadly, OSC) keeps pushing.
Romney called for a "managed bankruptcy." But this would not have worked in 2008. From the Washington Post's Fact Check:
quote:"Here’s how the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel, in a unanimous finding, framed the issue in a January 2011 report: "The circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited."
Romney's plan would not have worked; he straight out said the government should not 'seal their fate with a bailout check." Obama was right.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Woe to the next generation--if there is one. The Lord will come within nine years.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this prediction will fall in line with every other prediction you've ever made on this site.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh my god OSC's last article.
It is, like, absolute spittling fury. CNN is every bit the enemy to democracy that the Nazis were. FEMA did "at least as badly as the Bush administration did after Katrina." Fox news coverage was the only "genuinely balanced" coverage.
quote:faced with your monolithic groupthink, your insistent flacking for the Beloved Leader, your dishonesty that is equal to his dishonesty, your emulation of Pravda, the Republicans in Congress will give up, Fox News will drop the story, it will all go away, and the Beloved Leader will continue in power.
Then, when his appeasement of our enemies results in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv ...
When more and more Al-Qaeda-style attacks kill more Jews and more Americans around the world ...
When Obama's incompetent and anti-scientific economic policies have the consequences that such policies always have, and the American economy collapses under the weight of debts and entitlements ...
When Obama's crushing policies result in American healthcare sinking to the low level of service, the endless waiting lists, the needless death and suffering in the name of "fairness" that already afflict Europeans and Canadians ...
When the burden of ever-steeper taxes moves capital and industry and innovation to other countries ...
Will you step forward and take responsibility, and say, "We should have known; in fact we did know, but we did not tell you"?
Will you accept accountability for your lies and omissions in support of the Beloved Leader, for your slanders of the opponents of the Beloved Leader, for your having put your ideology and group loyalty above any notion of truth and honor?
That list of bad things -- we might get lucky. Some of those bad things might not happen. After all, there are still plenty of good people trying to keep us safe and make things work well.
The Beloved Leader isn't one of them, but he thinks he is, and so he might actually learn something and change his policies. It's possible, though it hasn't happened even once during the first four years of his reign.
Or Israel might take care of the Iranian nuke for us. Jews aren't going to sit still for another holocaust, even if the intellectuals of the world -- including you -- have re-embraced fashionable anti-semitism, this time under the name "anti-zionism" or "anti-neo-conservatism."
I am agape.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I'd strongly consider sending Ron some money to predict that bad things would happen to me and mine. I'm afraid that it really doesn't work like that though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
OSC's head is full of angry bees. I don't think it's fair to laugh at him for this...but I find it hard not to.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
OSC with his finger on the pulse, yet again. O_O
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:The Lord will come within nine years.
Will we become aware of it or will it be one of those incognito comings, where He comes, but 99.99% of the human population hasn't actually realized he has come?
Consider using http://predictionbook.com/ to record your predictions; you can put a percentage of certainty on each prediction, so that you then judge if you tend to be overconfident, underconfident.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's one the reasons why I see Nate Silver going 50 for 50 on statewide predictions as being on of the more important things to come out of this. I've had no doubt that President Obama was going to win pretty much the entire time, because the electoral math was so obviously in his favor.
I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Though I certainly saw a lot more conservative news outlets saying Romney would win, I honestly thought that it was pretty much across the board fantasy we were in a nail-biter. Everyone knew what their audience needed to hear if they were to tune in again and then just said that. Which is a really scary precedent to set when the news starts doing that, even if it's just from their pundit's speculations about a future event.
quote:You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A companion piece to boots's, written by a conservative pundit who predicted that Obama was going to win. Here's the money quote:
quote:One of the many reasons that the conservative movement is in such deep trouble is that those who were wrong here will suffer no consequences and those who knew the truth will receive no benefit.
This sums a lot of it to me. I was basically forced out of the Republican Party during the Bush years as it bought more and more into embracing fantasy and outright falsehood with no regard for the consequences. There are a lot of important parts of what was traditionally the conservative viewpoint/philosophy/ideology that I feel have largely been lost in favor of courting the ignorant, angry, and old who prefer lies that agree with them to truth that doesn't.
I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement. Not only do we have an entire segment of the populace that chooses to get their information from a source that leaves them worse informed that if they didn't look at news at all, but (even if you don't agree with me that a lot of the conservative ideology is important) the principled opposition that the should be presenting is a necessary component of refining and reigning in the excesses of the liberals and Democrats. They seem to have largely swapped that for opposition based on shallow ideology and cultivated personal hatred.
The Republicans have spent a lot of more than the last decade actively degrading ideals I think are very important, like responsibility, honesty, integrity, etc. I'm not sure exactly what these concepts look like in the minds of those who have bought into their perversions, but I know that they scare me.
[ November 07, 2012, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... The end of America as a nation that stands for good in the world, and the end of the world as it looks to America for leadership.
Yeah, that's Obama's doing.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I never thought I'd say it . . . but . . . is Ron a secret pseudonym for OSC? I have a hard time believing some of the political essays lately.
I find it hard to believe some of the allegations in his essay. It's almost akin to conspiracy theory ranting. Like the economy, for instance. Most of the economists who have been (successfully) planning our recovery are the same mainstream economists that Bush had. The same cronies that Greenspan hung with. There've been a few new faces, but mainstream economic theory is on our side. Why would anyone blame Obama? It's not like he's doing any crazy socialist plotting. He's doing what any of us would do -- trusting the scientific experts and advisers. Just like he has with the military. We have facts on all of the other "crimes". I really don't understand the objection from laymen who don't understand economics / military theory / the way the government works / etc.
I'm a bit aghast.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement.
What, you mean having no real party choice in presidential elections, and having a congress where one party refuses to let anything get through if it would help them hurt the other party (and in the process becoming almost as unpopular as castro) is BAD for a country? what??
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The election was severely corrupted by the dishonesty and unprofessionalism of the Main Stream Media, which refused to take Obama to task for his obvious miscues, such as "Fast and Furious," the terrorist attack in Benghazi and Obama's attempt for ten days afterward to characterize it as a "demonstration" against an inconsequential internet video, and Obama's lie that Romney did not call for GM and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy WITH GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES--which is pretty much what Obama did, except that he gave the car companies cash up front.
Some leftist liberals may delude themselves that they have a cause for celebration. But what is there really to celebrate? The triumph of wrong? The triumph of negative campaigning and untrue personal attacks? The triumph of a total incompetent who never so much as managed a lemonade stand over a proven professional in business?
Contemplate very carefully what the nation has let itself in for during the next four years, and see if it is really a cause for celebrating. I think this is the beginning of the end. The end of America as a nation that stands for good in the world, and the end of the world as it looks to America for leadership. I am afraid there may be no recovery from this. We are heading downhill, and it is permanent. This time, we have finally gone too far. Woe to the next generation--if there is one. The Lord will come within nine years.
Hey Ron, you should start an extreme right email chain and start sending them out. You would be really good at it. It would probably be a quick road to popularity, as there is still a large segment of people ready to eat this stuff up. You can all join in sharing the same predictions. After all, why keep exposing yourself to people here that just can't see the wisdom behind these predictions.
I mean, c'mon, being wrong about everything shouldn't change the fact that your predictions are gold.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Speaking of classy responses to the election results, I like this response by the LDS church:
We congratulate President Obama on winning a second term as President of the United States.
After a long campaign, this is now a time for Americans to come together. It is a long tradition among Latter-day Saints to pray for our national leaders in our personal prayers and in our congregations. We invite Americans everywhere, whatever their political persuasion, to pray for the President, for his administration and the new Congress as they lead us through difficult and turbulent times. May our national leaders reflect the best in wisdom and judgment as they fulfill the great trust afforded to them by the American people.
We also commend Governor Romney for engaging at the highest level of our democratic process, which, by its nature, demands so much of those who offer themselves for public service. We wish him and his family every success in their future endeavors.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You know, it really sinks my heart to see how nutty OSC has gotten. I really wish he was more level headed and less of an extremist in his thinking (the world is doomed because we re-elected one person? Really?).
And Ron, just out of curiosity, what could you possibly be basing this 9 year prediction on? Do I even have to quote you the line in Revelations that states, "No man knoweth the day nor the hour the lord cometh"? Not even Christ knows, according to the bible.
Let's not be so arrogant as to think any of us has a clue what the future holds.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The election was severely corrupted by the dishonesty and unprofessionalism of the Main Stream Media, which refused to take Obama to task for his obvious miscues, such as "Fast and Furious," the terrorist attack in Benghazi and Obama's attempt for ten days afterward to characterize it as a "demonstration" against an inconsequential internet video, and Obama's lie that Romney did not call for GM and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy WITH GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES--which is pretty much what Obama did, except that he gave the car companies cash up front.
Some leftist liberals may delude themselves that they have a cause for celebration. But what is there really to celebrate? The triumph of wrong? The triumph of negative campaigning and untrue personal attacks? The triumph of a total incompetent who never so much as managed a lemonade stand over a proven professional in business?
Contemplate very carefully what the nation has let itself in for during the next four years, and see if it is really a cause for celebrating. I think this is the beginning of the end. The end of America as a nation that stands for good in the world, and the end of the world as it looks to America for leadership. I am afraid there may be no recovery from this. We are heading downhill, and it is permanent. This time, we have finally gone too far. Woe to the next generation--if there is one. The Lord will come within nine years.
Ron are you going to respond to my earlier post? I'mma gonna also just keep hounding with this question until you do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Let's not be so arrogant as to think any of us has a clue what the future holds.
I'm mildly surprised that Nate is getting so much press now, he's gone viral. I also love his twitter of "Hey guys, wanna get my new books?" when its apparent his prediction was 50 for 50.
He was pretty much on the ball before and had some attention but I'm pretty sure its snowballing now that the Conservatives have a punching bag.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Do I even have to quote you the line in Revelations that states, "No man knoweth the day nor the hour the lord cometh"?
It's in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not in Revelation. Which also doesn't have an "s" on the end.
Other than that, carry on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ok, I actually read OSC's piece.
Yeah I know that his version of declaring he's going to run off to Canada, but man, that sounds like something a teenager would write to the girl who just dumped him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think he's mad that he didn't get to become leader of the world ala Peter and Valentine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How, for heaven's sake, would Canada be more to his liking?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm thinking (hoping) OSC is trying to pull a Joaquin Phoenix and he's faking a meltdown. It's just that OSC has been in character for, well, about a decade now. Any time he wants to write an essay telling the world how we've all been punk'd by him would be great.
Seriously.
Any moment now, it'll come.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I'm just saying that after every election, some of the less mature people whose preferred candidates didn't win throw a tantrum and do things like threaten to move to Canada or write about how their guy totally should have won and how our love would have worked, Doreen, but everything is all your fault. No matter what I did, it was never enough for you. You're just so...so selfish and you're never going to find another guy who will treat you like I did.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Do I even have to quote you the line in Revelations that states, "No man knoweth the day nor the hour the lord cometh"?
It's in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but not in Revelation. Which also doesn't have an "s" on the end.
Other than that, carry on.
No YOU carry on.
Good day, sir.
I said GOOD DAY!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ma'am. dkw is a woman. Other than that, carry on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
one, he's osc
two, obama won
three, gay marriage spread out to enough states last night to map out a nice middle finger to "defenders of traditional marriage"
four, it was done by popular ballot, putting a discreet end to the activist judges slash enforcing it against the will of the peeeeeople populist bellendry
five, this all happened at once
in hindsight, expecting anything else other than that the guy was going to be absolutely, ragingly, off-the-rails livid today was obviously not going to be fruitful. but i am still surprised by the definitionally hateful response. he's apoplectic.
kay, I guess that's all I have to say bout that!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
One of the things that first drew me to Hatrack was OSC's Civilization Watch column. I remember thinking that they seemed refreshingly reasonable. I'm almost afraid to go back and read the early ones to see how reasonable they seem now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ok, I actually read OSC's piece.
Yeah I know that his version of declaring he's going to run off to Canada, but man, that sounds like something a teenager would write to the girl who just dumped him.
He thinks more and more like a child every year. I think he thinks this is a good thing, btw.
I'll say this, I think as I've grown older I've come to realize it more and more. What impressed me about his writing was skill. Great writing, and it was great writing, is about highlighting these tiny observations we all make, recognizing what is significant and what is not. You don't have to be an intellectual giant to be skilled at something. We all know people with tremendous skill who are not deep thinkers. But writers can appear to be deep. Writers have the artifice of depth in their craft.
And I think somewhere along the way, OSC stopped realizing that his writing skills -his ability to be convincing and effective in words on a page- did not actually make his ideas good, or right, well informed, or impossible to dismiss. And then, I think, somewhere along the way he *did* realize this, and it has made him the very bitter person he presents himself as in his current writing.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
You know that sound that Daffy Duck makes when he does all those back flips at the end of a cartoon? That became the soundtrack in my head when I tried to read that last thing. Wow.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Honestly, I think he's frightened. I think the fact that so many people are willfully, deliberately ignoring so many obvious, self-evident truths is maddening and terrifying.
Imagine being on a plane piloted by maniacs who insist that you can too fly through a mountain as long as you think happy thoughts, and nothing you say, no matter how reasonable, will dissuade them. And half the other passengers on the plane believe them and seem to think you're crazy. You fear for your life and your family's lives and even for the lives of the maniacs, and you yell louder and more frantically the closer the mountain gets because their stupid insanity is about to end it for all of you...
I believe he's utterly sincere. And because he's utterly sincere, of course he would look for news and people who would verify what he can plainly see, and that gives him more facts with which to try and convince the mad pilots. Any refutations of those facts are the insane excuses of people who, whether they know it or not, want to kill everybody, and how can you believe them when to give in means fiery death?
I don't think his facts are all correct, I don't think the motivations he assigns to those facts is correct, and I don't agree with his conclusions. But I think I understand a little of why he might be getting more and more shrill.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: You know that sound that Daffy Duck makes when he does all those back flips at the end of a cartoon? That became the soundtrack in my head when I tried to read that last thing. Wow.
Hey though, we got the Nazi reference in there, so there's that. Which is nice.
quote: I don't think his facts are all correct, I don't think the motivations he assigns to those facts is correct, and I don't agree with his conclusions. But I think I understand a little of why he might be getting more and more shrill.
I've understood it for years. That understanding doesn't make this behavior forgivable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would perhaps add in a stiff but not overwhelming dose of standard political dishonesty of people committed to hyping one side or another, but aside from that I tend to agree with you, Chris.
Not sure if I would have had I never read some of his work, especially the early stuff.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I can totally see that. It's just exhausting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just a few paragraphs in and I'm already thinking, "You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
Not that this will get that sort of exposure, but that 'concession' speech back in...62? 64? Stuck with and tarred Nixon for a LONG time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Imagine being on a plane piloted by maniacs who insist that you can too fly through a mountain as long as you think happy thoughts, and nothing you say, no matter how reasonable, will dissuade them. And half the other passengers on the plane believe them and seem to think you're crazy.
And that all other planes are even more maniacal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When did he become a hardcore economic conservative? Wasn't his line always that he was economically liberal, but his social conservatism and hawkishness trumped his remaining Democrat sympathies?
quote:When Obama's incompetent and anti-scientific economic policies have the consequences that such policies always have, and the American economy collapses under the weight of debts and entitlements ...
When Obama's crushing policies result in American healthcare sinking to the low level of service, the endless waiting lists, the needless death and suffering in the name of "fairness" that already afflict Europeans and Canadians ...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah that pissed me off so much; funnily enough even the worst stories I've heard from other Canadians, I've seen Americans go "I go through all that too but I have to pay 300$ a month; where do I sign up?"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
From a friend's reaction:
quote:"Even though his administration, his FEMA, did at least as badly as the Bush administration did after Katrina..."
No details are provided. It is just obvious, I guess, that 55 deaths is at least as appalling as 1800.
few things do actually peeve me; the whole "Obama's Katrina" lines were pretty bad, and the absolute utter delusion that Sandy was equivalent mismanagement of a humanitarian concern — to what extent it is construed a mismanagement at all, most analysts said it was a prompt and sufficient response — is just .. it comes off as vile ignorance.
Maybe not vile. Certainly dangerous ignorance by people who never got over their president being correctly called to task for dire incompetence.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From a friend's reaction:
quote:"Even though his administration, his FEMA, did at least as badly as the Bush administration did after Katrina..."
No details are provided. It is just obvious, I guess, that 55 deaths is at least as appalling as 1800.
I'm generally trying to stay away from the self-congratulatory circle-jerk in this thread (you guys're welcome to it!) but I didn't want to leave this without comment. I'm surprised to see such smug equivalence from you, Destineer.
The situations are massively different. Do you really think that the primary factor in the different death tolls is the president? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait, so you're surprised Destineer is baffled and (I assume) offended at the notion of drawing equivalence between handling of Katrina and of Sandy?
Actually, a preliminary question to that-do you think Katrina was handled badly by the federal government and if so, that Sandy has been handled on a level nearly as bad? Or-and this is somewhat tongue in cheek-the equivalence being drawn here yours, that handling of Sandy and Katrina was similar?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
No, I'm not commenting on the handling of either of them per se. I don't really care. I'm also not commenting on OSC's equivalence and underhanded jab at Obama.
I do think the attitude that Katrina represented a huge failure on Bush's part is grossly overstated. But that's also largely irrelevant to what I was saying above.
My point was, I just think using the death figures like they're proof for or against either president is really disingenuous and sleazy. The storms were different in a host of ways that have nothing to do with either administration, and I think the majority of the deaths are attributable to that fact. Regardless of the federal response.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I should say, Katrina's never been a big issue for me. I was quoting my friend, after all.
I do feel like a higher body count is at least some reason to think FEMA "did worse" (to borrow Card's phrase) during Katrina than they did during Sandy.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It could be a reason, but in isolation it's a bad explanation. I can think of a dozen explanations for both death figures off the top of my head that would be compatible with Bush's handling being vastly better than Obama's.
I'm not saying those explanations are accurate, to be clear. Just that with no other data they are just as plausible.
Katrina was never a big issue for me either. I just think this sort of context-free sarcastic witticism is beneath you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, I didn't say it. But take a look at the very brief point my buddy does make. "No details are provided" by Card. He's not saying Katrina is obviously worse than Sandy, necessarily. He's saying the burden is on Card to at least present some argument that the two are analogous, when by superficial measures, at least, they clearly aren't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, as you said, this is a circle-jerk we're having here. Smug, unfair quips are the order of the day; well-reasoned essays I'll save for weightier matters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Well, I didn't say it. But take a look at the very brief point my buddy does make. "No details are provided" by Card. He's not saying Katrina is obviously worse than Sandy, necessarily. He's saying the burden is on Card to at least present some argument that the two are analogous, when by superficial measures, at least, they clearly aren't.
ding
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(Yeah I know you didn't say it, but you repeated it. If I said "My friend says Obama should go back to Kenya, hah hah" I hope that you'd call me on saying, or repeating, something so stupid.)
Nevertheless, you made two good points in those two posts. Card's comment was also an unargued context-free assertion, and you are posting in a smugfest, so I'll let it slide now. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, hopefully you would be called more quickly for repeating 'go back to Kenya' than the other thing, since the implication that Obama is from Kenya to go back to is considerably more stupid than the notion that Obama has handled Sandy about as well as Dubya did Katrina-much less far, far worse.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sure, my point was just that he chose to repeat it so I felt it was fair for me to criticize him for it, even though it didn't originate with him.
Regardless, I've largely conceded my criticisms in light of his recent comments. So... Yeah.
Edited because I posted on my phone, which yielded one of those lovely auto-corrected "typos" that don't look anything like the typos I grew up with.
[ November 08, 2012, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks, Dan. And thanks for letting us have our fun. It must be kind of obnoxious, seen from the other side of the fence. I hope it's not as bad for you as it was for me in '04. That was a rough time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Boehner says Republicans are ready to talk about new revenues. I want to believe what I thought would happen is actually happening. Republicans got the message that their platform is rickety, and needs correction, especially on taxes.
Let's hope Boehner can get his Tea Party clique on a leash this time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm ...
skeptical?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
About which part? That Boehner is willing to talk about new revenues, or that he can control the radical elements this time?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Both.
The so-called "Grand Bargain" fell apart before the election because Boehner couldn't wrangle enough votes on his side of the aisle.
And McConnell released a statement on election night saying he wasn't going to surrender to Obama. For that matter, Boehner announced that keeping the House meant they had just as much of a mandate as Obama.
I'm happy to see him head fake toward compromise, but we'll see what happens when they get in a room together.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like if I had to project a result based on extrapolated data involving the house of representatives, this is another grand bargain style trap that boenher et al is using as a trap, a way to provoke the look of talks so that hr's can go "WE REACHED ACROSS THE AISLE AND OBAMA WAS UNWILLING TO COMPROMISE, NO MANDATE NO MANDATE" and craft a narrative about how, no, it is obama and the liberalz who are unable to compromise!!1
— because that is pretty literally the standard of behavior we have known from them ever since 2006.
i mean we are talking about an organization which is literally less popular than the idea of the united states going communist and boenher's behavior really acts as a succinct demonstration why.
the idea that they are legitimately going to change their ways is something that bears being seen before it is believed
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come. I said it would be within nine years. That could be any time within the next 5-9 years, as I see it.
I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man. The possibility of a black man ever becoming president was at that time less than remote.
First, you will see Obama get national government level approval of calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator. That will lead to an outbreak of calamities even worse and more frequent that anything we have seen in recent years, as God begins a signal withdrawal of His protection. That in turn will lead to virtually everyone saying the answer is we need to get right with God as a nation--and religious tyranny will some to America, which will lead to the enactment of a National Sunday Law, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of the Creator, Who designated the seventh day Sabbath as the memorial of His Creation of earth, and as the sign of His authority. Interestingly, Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divine institutions that God gave to humanity in Eden before the entrance of sin.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, now when none of that happens with the possible exception of the marriage stuff, with the possible but unlikely exception of the marriage bit, remember Ron: even though it will be still another example of a prediction you've made that was hugely, predictably, and comically wrong that will be no reason to re-evaluate the beliefs you held which led to that prediction in the first place.
That's one of the most important lessons about being human, after all: when the world doesn't conform to the world between your ears over and over and over again, just believe it harder.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator
Our language is organic. "Marriage", like many other words, has meant many things, but has always just been a discriptor of arrangements that can be precisely described with or without any particular definition of the word. The actual English word wasn't divinely created regardless of what you believe of the particular arrangement that it has described at any given point. I can see your God being a bit miffed at people forming unapproved arrangements, but it seems silly that semantics are the major point for him.
Defiance of a definition seems like a pretty petty thing to be upset over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and on a related note someone in 1982 predicting there would one day be a black President is a worthless prediction.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Headline in the Chicago Defender in 1964: "Negro President Possible In Next 25 Years: King."
The article was about King's response to Senator Robert Kennedy's claim that there could be a black president within 40 years.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ron, why on earth are you addressing me with that? I was just correcting Jeff's citation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find the idea of a National Sunday Law to be absolutely, hysterically funny. I mean, Seventh-Day Adventists are kooky on a number of levels, but the idea that anyone cares about this enough to legislate it is so staggeringly out of touch that it almost makes me feel bad for them, like they're puppies who don't realize that the other puppies they're seeing are just on TV.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oh wow, I didn't know that was a Thing. The capitalization should have tipped me off.
Sure enough:
quote:National Sunday law is a conspiracy theory that the United States government is on the verge of enacting a national blue law declaring Sunday a day of rest and worship. According to this theory, the Pope is the Antichrist and the mark of the beast is worship on Sunday. Sinister forces (read: the Vatican) are conspiring to enact a national Sunday law in the United States. When this happens it will be the trigger that unleashes the coming fulfillment of the Bible prophecies in Daniel and Revelations.
Ron, you should be relieved that President Obama is a godless, atheist Muslim. They don't do the Sunday thing.
You might have a point with the gay marriage thing though because the President has secret plans to Sharia law which totally encourages gay sex.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But if the conservative movement and the conservative media and the republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.
Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come. I said it would be within nine years. That could be any time within the next 5-9 years, as I see it.
I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man. The possibility of a black man ever becoming president was at that time less than remote.
First, you will see Obama get national government level approval of calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator. That will lead to an outbreak of calamities even worse and more frequent that anything we have seen in recent years, as God begins a signal withdrawal of His protection. That in turn will lead to virtually everyone saying the answer is we need to get right with God as a nation--and religious tyranny will some to America, which will lead to the enactment of a National Sunday Law, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of the Creator, Who designated the seventh day Sabbath as the memorial of His Creation of earth, and as the sign of His authority. Interestingly, Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divine institutions that God gave to humanity in Eden before the entrance of sin.
adding to ron lambert prediction list
also noting that ron is now having more trouble than usual figuring out what's happening or who he's responding to
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I would hesitate to call it a "shellacking", but her overall point I think is a good one. I also appreciated her delivery. Maybe I should look for more videos of her. Getting my news almost exclusively from the web (and in written form instead of videos most times) I miss out on stuff like this.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come, I said it would be within nine years
You've still not clarified whether Christ's coming will be obvious to all, or if e.g. 99.9% of the human population will be ignorant of it but it will be known to a select few. We need this clarification in order to be able to judge properly and unambiguously the accuracy of the prophecy.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man.
If that's all you're basing this on, then hopefully you do understand that the black man in question needn't have been Obama -- that it might be some other black president dozens or even hundreds of years in the future, right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
going back to my original predictions based on what the data shows (of which this election has been completely emblematic of) said death knell has already been delivered but the results are still at least more than a decade away. they're just inescapable, barring some completely unforeseen effect on the populace by something we have no real precedent for.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote: Democracy as we practice it in America works best when voter turnout is light, and only the people who are really informed and really care turn out to vote; when there is a large turnout, the decision made by the electorate is almost always wrong.
Yeah, look at Mississippi and Alabama. For decades they kept voter turn out light, with only the people who were really informed and really cared, and who happened to be white, were allowed to vote at all. That worked out so well for the masses of poor, poorly informed, African Americans who weren't given the burden of voting.
In that same vain....
Stalinist Communism is the best of all political parties....as long as your a communist...and as long as your Stalin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Democracy only works when mostly 'wise' people vote and keep this country on the right path according to other old white guys some of who know some guy had a dream 20 years ago revealing that some day we would have a black president and he would let gays marry which makes god spitefully turn off his angel anti-meteor shield and the resulting disasters cause America to suddenly awaken to the glory of god, but not the CORRECT glory of god because the Vatican is satanic, and so we revert to theocratic measures try to earn back god's favor with the enforcement of a blue law which makes Sunday an official sabbath day which literally is the trigger that causes the apocalypse, which is why only wise voters is so important because they vote out the black dude who was president, because the vision clearly indicates that he would set all this in motion, and honestly when you think about it is probably a good idea to just not have black presidents because that threatens us with destruction via bible prophecies.
Meanwhile the Benghazi attack was orchestrated by the president and or was a coverup we can just know right now prior to an investigation and it's definitely worth criticizing Obama for more than we should criticize Bush for say like 9/11 or whatever and Obama deserved as much criticism for the response to Sandy as Bush deserves for the response to Katrina.
heeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy i'm on hatrack
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
If the Republicans see this election as proof that Romney betrayed their conservative principles and they tack to the right even more, I don't see 2014 as an object lesson in Democratic ineptitude, especially if Hillary runs and gets the nomination.
If she runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Even so, I can't at this time endorse a system that would so limit the vote, simply because "one vote per adult" is a very useful and very clear Schelling point: Any violation of that towards a restriction of the right to vote would have vast possibility of destabilizing/delegitimizing/corrupting the whole system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like how in some places once you're a felon you are barred from voting forever?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: dkw, I did not fix a day and hour when Christ will come. I said it would be within nine years. That could be any time within the next 5-9 years, as I see it.
I know of a pastor who said he was given a dream over 20 years ago that the U.S. president who would sign the National Sunday Law which signals the beginning of the Final Conflict between Good and Evil would be a black man. The possibility of a black man ever becoming president was at that time less than remote.
First, you will see Obama get national government level approval of calling a homosexual union "marriage," in direct defiance of the definition of Marriage given by the Creator. That will lead to an outbreak of calamities even worse and more frequent that anything we have seen in recent years, as God begins a signal withdrawal of His protection. That in turn will lead to virtually everyone saying the answer is we need to get right with God as a nation--and religious tyranny will some to America, which will lead to the enactment of a National Sunday Law, which would be a direct challenge to the authority of the Creator, Who designated the seventh day Sabbath as the memorial of His Creation of earth, and as the sign of His authority. Interestingly, Marriage and the Sabbath are the two divine institutions that God gave to humanity in Eden before the entrance of sin.
Yo. Hey ron.
So about coal; do you concede that American coal production cannot make America energy sufficient WITHOUT renewables?
If you don't answer this post, I'll take it as a concession.
Last chance to respond.
Forever...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm less skeptical now. boehner has ended the house's waste-of-time attempts to repeal obamacare and called it the 'law of the land.'
i think he knows that the cliff faces him first, or something.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:like how in some places once you're a felon you are barred from voting forever?
That itself is somewhat problematic, especially given how ludicrous some of those 'felonies' are (possession of marijuana a felony?') but at least "felon" is a binary category (you've either been convicted of a felony or you haven't).
But setting an arbitrary IQ limit on the other hand brings up issues of which limit to set, what tests to administer said IQ, etc, etc... any distinction made along those lines would be even less of a Schelling Point, and thus even more unstable/questionable/challenged on grounds of legitimacy.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If [Hillary Clinton] runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Should we begin a Lyrhawn prediction list as well?
Is this chart saying on average electrical engineers have a higher IQ than lawyers?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Should we begin a Lyrhawn prediction list as well?
Could be a fun list. I predict all sorts of things.
I expect you to throw this back in my face in four years.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I would hesitate to call it a "shellacking", but her overall point I think is a good one. I also appreciated her delivery. Maybe I should look for more videos of her. Getting my news almost exclusively from the web (and in written form instead of videos most times) I miss out on stuff like this.
I wouldn't call it a shellacking either. If you look at the numbers, there were 3 million people that voted in 2008 that didn't vote in 2012 on the Republican side. It is true that the Republicans did not see that coming. The Democrats KNEW they wouldn't get 2008 turnout levels, and planned accordingly. If those 3 million Republicans that didn't vote this time around had gone to the polls, the election could have quite possibly turned out different than it did.
I do agree a little though that the Republicans need to change their position on some things if they want to win in the future, but not as much as some are calling for. I don't believe the reason the majority of hispanics for example vote based on immigration policy alone. Poverty and government benefits play into this quite a bit. I shop at a Mexican supermarket regularly (Albertsons, Smiths, etc. don't have nearly the same quality baked goods or meats) and every single one had an EBT card. We do our shopping once a week, and I see it all the time.
I think part of the Republican party's problem isn't so much what they stand for, it is how they are portrayed. Do Republicans want people out of poverty? Of course they do! They want to create jobs. How are they portrayed however? As people who want to take away your benefits and only want the rich to succeed.
There are some things the Republicans need to change, but they need to take a good hard look at how they are protrayed, and do everything they can to change that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26920037@N06/2933924214/
Is this chart saying on average electrical engineers have a higher IQ than lawyers? [/QB]
The chart actually seems to rank them by the median (50 percentile) see http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx for a clearer pic -- and "electrical engineers" and "legal occupations" have the same position as a median, so the image I provided previously seems to be improper in at least two ways (changing "legal occupations" to "lawyers", and treating them as if they were differently ranked than electrical engineers, when actually their median was the same)
More such flaws may exist there (I didn't study it thoroughly), so thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
While I agree it would be a mistake to lump all Hispanic voters into immigration single-issuers, the problem goes deeper than 'how they are portrayed' and well into 'how they portray themselves'. We only need to head back to the GOP primaries when a message (that didn't need Democratic help to sound this way, btw) emerged that read 'we don't like you' to Hispanics. To trump that you would need to have a provably better message in just about everything else, and the GOP sure didn't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Geraine,
While I agree it would be a mistake to lump all Hispanic voters into immigration single-issuers, the problem goes deeper than 'how they are portrayed' and well into 'how they portray themselves'. We only need to head back to the GOP primaries when a message (that didn't need Democratic help to sound this way, btw) emerged that read 'we don't like you' to Hispanics. To trump that you would need to have a provably better message in just about everything else, and the GOP sure didn't.
I totally disagree with the republican immigration stance, but I have to say I disagree. I can't see what they said that would give this impression that wasn't immigration related.
If you were a Hispanic who didn't mind harsh immigration laws, what would you have seen that said "we don't like you" from the primaries?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I expect you to throw this back in my face in four years.
I'll do my best to remember.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: More such flaws may exist there (I didn't study it thoroughly), so thanks for bringing this to my attention.
It just seemed like a fascinating little nugget of info. Thanks for the clarification!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what I mean-the primary talk about immigration is what conveyed that message, and even when Hispanics were more concerned with say the economy (which was far from uncommon), that message was still in their ears.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Welp grrrreat thread BYE
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's what I mean-the primary talk about immigration is what conveyed that message, and even when Hispanics were more concerned with say the economy (which was far from uncommon), that message was still in their ears.
Oh okay, sorry, I misunderstood you then. My bad.
But pro-strict-immigration Hispanic voters (no idea how big of a demographic that might be) didn't get any message of "We don't like you," right?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
No, I'm good. Just as a parting reminder: An assertion is not an argument.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
For a supposed circle jerk, this thread fails to deliver. Its mostly just postgame dissection punctuated with responses to osc and ron acting the part of right wingers totally divorced from reality and saying ugly hard to defend things as a result. Like that the msm are nazis essentially or that democracy only works with low turnout.
Osc's column was off the walls enough to end up getting talked about everywhere I hang out, whether its considered liberal or not. It really is impressive. Just not for the desired reasons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Fantastic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Republican policies do not create jobs, so their portrayal is completely accurate.
Also it isn't a 'surprise' or profound to say that "Well if more people voted, we would've won!" thing is, suppose circumstances were such those 3 million republicans went out and voted, wouldn't those circumstances then mean the comparable number of democrats would also vote? You don't get to wave a magic wand and wave away the reality of the situation.
I'm really glad you're on the other side of the political spectrum from me, Blayne.
I see your not responding with anything other than a non response?
Lets study the statement, "Republican policies do not create jobs" do you wish to dispute this? If not, don't hide behind non responses.
No, I'm good. Just as a parting reminder: An assertion is not an argument.
Okay, so here's the argument then:
Republican policies aim at shrinking the middle class for the benefit of the upper. The laughable "Laffer Curve" frequently cited by Conservatives of 'low taxation equals higher economic activity' is an entirely discredited notion. Even if it were true evidence would suggest that taxes are already so low that lowering them further simply loses you more revenues for no returns.
Secondly, Republican policies aim to degrade, remove, discredit, defund, and deteriorate the social safety net in the United States. This is proven to lower aggregate demand which will harm the economy for a developed nation like the United States.
Since the United States is a consumption based economy and the 'rich' or top 20% don't particularly consume all that much, this means its the poor and middle class whose consumption drives the economy. So the less they have to spend (either through crippling debts from predatory lending from the unregulated financial markets) the less the economy does well, the less people companies hire and so the less money in people's pockets and so on.
Thirdly, since aggregate demand is what drives the economy, republican efforts to deny the social safety net through for instance, obstructionism to the Affordable Care Act or efforts to repeal it likewise harm the economy. Since with the ACA in full effect people would be less likely to go into crippling debt if they get in an accident or contract some illness and thus have more money to spend on Ipads.
Fourthly, Republicans being against equal rights for minorities, women and LGBT folks means that they through various discriminatory laws will be less likely to productively contribute to the economy.
Fifthly, Republicans wish to ruin Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The less financially secure Americans of all age brackets are in their future means the less able they are to effectively and productively contribute to society.
Sixthly, Republicans are essentially and categorically against regulation. This means that future financial crisis are/is inevitable, harming the economy. Reinstuting Glass-Steigal would go a long way to prevent another meltdown.
Seventhly, Republicans deny global warming and seem to have this irrational hatred for trees. They refuses regulations that would reduce emissions and seem to think coal will solve all of our problems, despite this radically not being the case. Global warming will, through altered weather patterns have huge economic costs.
Eightly, Republicans are not in favor of economic investments, such as infrastructure, renewables, education and so. Education especially higher education leads to higher productivity, more innovation, increased efficiency, higher wages (and thus higher economic activity), and for the increased technological advancement.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Nah. Tired if circle jerks anyway. Just saying that if you're going to CALL this thread a circle jerk, know what one really is. Postgame commentary and shooting down ron does not count.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Who's calling the thread a circle jerk? I don't see anyone saying that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would be Dan.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, my bad. I must have missed that. Dan, where do you see a self congratulatory circle jerk? That doesn't seem to me to be an accurate or responsible characterization.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Dan's complaining elsewhere that Hatrack is a cesspool of smugness -- which I find rather amusing, given that Hatrack has, compared to most of the rest of the Internet, been remarkably free of vitriol or smugness as far as I can see.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Honestly, even with the demographic shifts that we're seeing, I think people are discounting the extremely powerful drive for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. 2008 was supposed to be the death knell for the Republican party. We had just gone through 8 years of one of the worst Presidents in history who had, with the willing aid of a majority Republican Congress, done massive damage to the military, economic, and social strength of our country. The Republican candidate for President got destroyed and the Democrats took a massive majority in Congress.
The Democratic position right now is weaker than it was then and I don't think they've learned much of anything from the shellacking they got in 2010. 2014 is coming and as unthinkable it seems now that the Democrats will suffer great upsets then, remember 2008.
And man, their foot is so itchy and the only thing they have to scratch it with is this gun. Surely nothing can go wrong.
---
The Republican party, especially as the lunatic fringe has seemingly become the core of the party, makes such a good villain that I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the Democrats are not generally the good guys in this story. And even if they were, they are still just so darn ineffective.
If the Republicans see this election as proof that Romney betrayed their conservative principles and they tack to the right even more, I don't see 2014 as an object lesson in Democratic ineptitude, especially if Hillary runs and gets the nomination.
If she runs, and the GOP nominates a right-wing firebreather, it'll be the biggest blowout we've seen in decades.
Lyr, I was talking about the midterm elections in 2014, not the next presidential election. Especially with the Republican controlled states gerrymandering like crazy, if the Democrats turn in more of the same, I think we'll see the GOP making substantial gains in Congress for during the mid-terms.
Yeah, it's going to be hard for the Democrats to lose the Presidency in a national election, but that's only one branch of the government.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My bad, I didn't put two and two together there (or rather, I DID put two and two together, when I should have put one and one together).
Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We haven't even really kicked up anything even remotely resembling Smugfest Circlejerk 2012™ about the fact that gay marriage really, seriously won hard and showed an evolving popular mandate for allowing gays to marry and have the same level of rights as everyone else as couples. This in spite of the fact that Ron is literally telling us that this will cause the apocalypse.
And, let's be honest, we should be "circlejerking" (read: 'enjoying some celebratory elation') about that because it is important and it is good and it is a sign of good and reasonable progress to everyone who has worked hard to see their gay friends treated justly by the law.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
I forget where, but one of the trending articles from the world of economic signals and signs noted that "whoever wins this election is going to be credited as a genius" basically because they were going to, barring any sort of overseas market contraction that catches us up in the chaos (china, I'm looking at you), sit atop a tide of rapid economic growth at the end of the recession. Romney wins? He says "Obama had four years, it obviously wasn't working, and look at how fast I turned things around." Obama wins? He says "Patience and perseverance paid off; my policies have been vindicated."
There's no confident way to predict out that far but you can argue confidence levels of suggested outcomes, and most of them indicate good things, so Obama now stands a very good chance of just sort of riding a tide.
That and it is worth noting about the gerrymandering issue: the republicans are about capped out on artificially enhanced popular representation. I don't think there's much more they can accomplish with district packing. It will be difficult — though possible! — for them to mobilize on some issue which reverses the current trend of losing out on the new voter demographics that are unavoidably eroding their base away, but under most scenarios they're just going to continue bleeding away.
And again, that's not me speaking in post-election elation, I've been saying this stuff since literally four years ago
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Aris, in answer to your question about Christ's coming, I would urge you not to be deceived by the Rapture foolishness that has infected so many Christians' thinking. The Bible is very clear, Jesus said: "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24:27; NASB) The angels told the disciples of Christ at His Ascension: "And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; and they also said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.'" (Acts 1:10, 11; NASB) The Apostle Paul said of Christ's coming: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17; NASB). Jesus also told John to write in Revelation: "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him...." (Revelation 1:7a; NASB) Obviously there will be nothing secret about His Coming. It will be the final event for the whole world.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, I do not recall ever saying we had a choice between use of coal and use of renewable energy sources. One does not preclude the other. It would be impossible as a practical matter for renewable energy sources to supply our entire energy need. But we do have enough coal to supply all our energy needs, in addition to other sources. Obviously we do not want to turn off our nuclear power plants, and we do not want to tear down Hoover Dam, etc. And if people can afford to put up solar cell panels and can make a profit with windmill farms, then fine. But those could never be more than a supplement to the primary sources of power, which right now are oil, gas, and coal.
Solar cell panels would be a more practical solution for individuals--if they can afford the initial installation costs, along with the costs of energy storage devices such as batteries, and alternators, to provide power when the sun is not shining.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Obviously there will be nothing secret about His Coming. It will be the final event for the whole world.
Okay and I need clarification, is this like, is your prediction that it 1. will absolutely happen within 9 years, or
2. will absolutely within 9 years of the united states in particular legalizing gay marriage on a federal level, or
3. will absolutely happen within 9 years of when the united states had legalized gay marriage which caused god to turn off the anti-meteor angel protection squad you detailed and so a bunch of disasters befall the united states which causes the united states to recognize that it was gay marriage and that god forsook the nation so they respond to it with a law making sunday a day of rest?
also why specifically does it matter only specifically that the united states legalizes gay marriage, plenty of other countries have done so already, is this part of some sort of american exceptionalism where god is like "i don't really care if those other countries let the queers marry, but if the united states lets my proper type of marriage fall by the wayside on a FEDERAL level (state level gets a pass) well then THATS IT this is going DOWN"
has god already turned off the angel anti-meteorite deflection squad over countries that have legalized gay marriage? Does it stay in effect over countries like Uganda which execute gays? Or is its continued renewal worldwide based on the performance of the united states? In which case can the rest of the world lobby the united states to refuse gay marriage because if we legalize gay marriage aren't we endangering the whole world? Is it like X-Com where if a certain amount of countries withdraw, the doom track overflows and the whole project is cancelled?
I need answers man, seventh day lambertist cosmology is confusing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My bad, I didn't put two and two together there (or rather, I DID put two and two together, when I should have put one and one together).
Many economists are predicting, assuming the 'fiscal cliff' is avoided, that the economy over the next 12 months or so will enter a new phase of rapid growth. If anything close to that happens and the pace of economic growth increases, Republicans lose pretty much their only major wedge issue of the moment. It's really impossible to say what the 2014 midterms, but I could just as easily see the Dems holding the Senate and picking up seats in the House.
I don't it came across, but I agree that the situation, as it stands, looks very favorable for the Democrats. It's just that they they seem to love firing a round or two in their feet, especially when things look really good for them.
Also, I think it's important to note that the Democrats are not, generally speaking, the good guys. They are trying to serve their interests and masters (which are often in opposition to what is good for the country as a whole).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't it came across, but I agree that the situation, as it stands, looks very favorable for the Democrats. It's just that they they seem to love firing a round or two in their feet, especially when things look really good for them.
I can't knock it. The Democratic Party has, in the past, really shown that it is adept at the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Thing is, though, they've really shown some 'lessons learned' about important elections. A lot of what happened in this election could be sold as an example of democrats figuring out that we live in a post-Rove election environment, so do not hesitate to use the exact same principles.
In fact, much of the campaign against romney showed distinct applications of Roveian strategy, including the really important "attack your opponent on his strengths" — his business leadership at Bain, etc. It was all a more workable or factually legitimized version of Swiftboating Romney.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From what I could tell, the "ground game" was really well organized with literally millions of volunteers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
more mormons voted for bush in 2004 than voted for romney in 2012
pew ALSO noted and presented straightforward data showing that the whole "the MSM is sticking up for Obama and working to make him win" was false and that in general both candidates got equal positive/negative/neutral coverage
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, the prophecies of the Bible are absolutely reliable. It is merely my opinion, based on what I know of these things, that it will be within nine years.
Tom, you called the SDA teaching that there will be a National Sunday Law in America to be "hysterically funny."
Around the turn of the century in 1900, there was a very powerful movement to enact such a Sunday Law at the national level. It almost succeeded. Adventists such as A.T. Jones testified before Congress against the law. The fervor mysteriously faded away--probably because God felt that those people who needed to be His faithful witnesses during the Final Conflict were not ready.
However, the Lord's Day Alliance still exists, and still has as its goal enactment of a national Sunday Law in America.
What you don't seem to appreciate is how things can change--how conventional thinking can change.
In ancient times, while Israel was on its way from Egypt to the Promised Land, King Balak tried to bribe Baalim the prophet to curse Israel. Baalim was unable to. But he apparently did clue in Balak that the way to get God to remove His blessings from Israel and curse them Himself, was to entice Israel to rebel against God. So Balak sent multitudes of pagan temple prostitutes to entice Israel to turn aside to their form of worship, and as a result a terrible plague of venomous serpents broke out that decimated the people of Israel. The plague was not stopped until at God's direction, Moses lifted up a brass serpent on a rod (the origin of the modern symbol of the Caduceus), which was a symbol of Christ bearing the sins of humanity (as Jesus said in John 3:14, 15), and everyone who had faith enough to look at it lived. This is the way--Balak's method of enticing the people to rebel against God--that Satan has learned to work to accomplish his ends. This is what he is trying to do now in America.
And America's influence in the world is so great, that when America commits itself to this course, the whole world will follow suit. As portrayed in Revelation 13. (The religious tyranny that will arise in America is the second beast in that chapter--the one that began as a "lamb-like" or Christ-like beast, and then began to speak as a dragon, as it began to lead in the path Satan would have it go.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Make sure you stop buying insurance then, and in nine years don't bother filling up at the pump.
Anyway, if you are really interested in getting people to believe in the predictive power of the Bible, you're actually a very bad witness for that case. You've proven repeatedly over the years and especially over the past several months that you are *really bad* at recognizing good predictions and *really good* at believing in predictions that are predictably, hugely wrong.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
That is your opinion Rakeesh, and it is you and all my detractors who are wrong. My predictions will stand. Your denials will not.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: And America's influence in the world is so great, that when America commits itself to this course, the whole world will follow suit. As portrayed in Revelation 13. (The religious tyranny that will arise in America is the second beast in that chapter--the one that began as a "lamb-like" or Christ-like beast, and then began to speak as a dragon, as it began to lead in the path Satan would have it go.)
But as Sam pointed out, a lot of the world has already legalized gay marriage years before the US. So actually the US is kind of following other counties on this one.
And as for America selling a particular brand of Christianity around the world... yes. That is clearly working out so well. Or not. It's influential, sure. But just because the US does something, it doesn't mean anyone else will. There are lots of things about the US that are pretty different from how anyone else does things.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Your predictions have already fallen. You have a much worse success rate than just writing predictions on a dartboard and throwing darts at it. You are laughably bad at recognizing the reality of the world you inhabit, and scarily good at denying anything that doesn't belong in your crazy-bubble. I'm just glad we're diametrically opposed on every major issue, because if you shared my positions on any of them I'd be embarrassed as hell to be associated with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That is your opinion Rakeesh, and it is you and all my detractors who are wrong. My predictions will stand. Your denials will not.
Ron, you said this pretty much verbatim about several things which turned out to be completely wrong.
You said it about the outstanding prediction agreement you still have with me that Obama would end his term impeached with the help of Democrats in Congress. Do you remember that?
I said that it was wrong and you would be wrong and you just repeated "Samprimary it is you and all my detractors who are wrong" and talked about your track record with predictions, even though your track record so far is SO wrong that it actually is an outlier for wrongness (the laws of probability alone make it hard to be wrong as consistently as you are)
You said it when people contested your claims that Palin would be the "de facto" leader of the Republican party by now.
Do you just shut your brain down to understanding when a prediction of yours has failed? Your every political prediction is like the Danlo the Wild of economic crash deadlines.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just came across a copy of the email concerning Pastor Darnall's dream.
quote:From: Mark and Pixie Vincent [mailto:pvincent1@woh.rr.com] Sent: 22 August 2009 00:33 To: Subject:
I have talked to the daughter of Jack Darnell myself. She says it's true.
-- Pix
****************
Here is the dream info of Jack Darnall:
"Back in the 1980s, Elder Jack Darnall, a well-known Seventh-day Adventist pastor in conservative circles, who ran an end-time training centre to prepare people for end-time events, held a prayer meeting in his house. As the people were leaving, he called aside another man and said to him that he felt impressed to tell him an impressive dream that he had. In the dream, he dreamed that it was the time when Jesus returned to earth in power and great glory. America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears. When elected, at first he was greatly beloved by the people, but then he became a terrible dictator."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: pew ALSO noted and presented straightforward data showing that the whole "the MSM is sticking up for Obama and working to make him win" was false and that in general both candidates got equal positive/negative/neutral coverage
Link?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: who ran an end-time training centre to prepare people for end-time events
I don't know about the rest of it - but that sounds awesome. How do you prepare for something like that?
Do they cover how to levitate up to heaven while keeping your knees together so no-one can see up your skirt?
quote: America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears.
Maybe they meant Will Smith - hey, maybe he'll do a Ronald Regan. Or, actually, that describes a lot of people.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I don't know about the rest of it - but that sounds awesome. How do you prepare for something like that?
If you're anything like the Fun!dies in the extended family of one of my partners: You practice viewing, like, any political event you like as a hastening of the obvious inevitable end of the world, and let it slowly drive you (more) neurotic and withdrawn, and convinced of things like how music in minor keys is satanic.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Dan's complaining elsewhere that Hatrack is a cesspool of smugness -- which I find rather amusing, given that Hatrack has, compared to most of the rest of the Internet, been remarkably free of vitriol or smugness as far as I can see.
Hey now, I never said "cesspool!"
I don't really give this stuff a pass just because there are places where it's exponentially worse (like the place Mucus linked). I'm measuring against a target of "zero smugness" not a target of "the average level of smugness on the internet."
By the latter standard, I agree, Hatrack is fine. But... that's meaningless, to me.
Anyway, I just went back through and found a bunch of posts that fit the bill for various reasons.
Some of the stuff was vitriol directed at OSC over the election... when you win, and one of the guys you beat cries, and then you all get together and mock him, that strikes me as smug self-congratulation. Even if he shouldn't have cried, it doesn't excuse the mockery. I actually didn't quote many of these because there were just too many and I sort of don't want to get in the middle of that.
Some of it was in the vein of the Maddow quote, that is, "advice" for Republicans, or some insight as to how they've changed so much from the good Republicans of the past that I totally support it's just these current extreme extremists that I can't stand.
And, surprising no one, Sam features heavily!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Okay, I lied. One last comment on the article.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: He thinks more and more like a child every year. I think he thinks this is a good thing, btw.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I thought Romney's concession speech was extremely weak, dispassionate, and paint-by-numbers. His one chance to act like a real human being and he still read that boring thing straight from the prompter. I'd like him so much more if he'd had a meltdown. Any sort of genuine moment from him would've been good.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: his ability to 'etch-a-sketch' was actually pretty much the reason why he rose to the top of the republican primary system. Without blatant dishonesty and the willing capacity to reinvent yourself dependent upon the audience, no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the republican primary can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the general election (see: santorum) and no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the general election can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the republican primary (see: huntsman).
The GOP is so completely broken right now that their only hope left to the presidency comes in the form of expert and callous mendacity — a person who can expertly play its own primary and then turn around and run a completely different platform for the general election.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: A companion piece to boots's, written by a conservative pundit who predicted that Obama was going to win. Here's the money quote:
quote:One of the many reasons that the conservative movement is in such deep trouble is that those who were wrong here will suffer no consequences and those who knew the truth will receive no benefit.
This sums a lot of it to me. I was basically forced out of the Republican Party during the Bush years as it bought more and more into embracing fantasy and outright falsehood with no regard for the consequences. There are a lot of important parts of what was traditionally the conservative viewpoint/philosophy/ideology that I feel have largely been lost in favor of courting the ignorant, angry, and old who prefer lies that agree with them to truth that doesn't.
I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement. Not only do we have an entire segment of the populace that chooses to get their information from a source that leaves them worse informed that if they didn't look at news at all, but (even if you don't agree with me that a lot of the conservative ideology is important) the principled opposition that the should be presenting is a necessary component of refining and reigning in the excesses of the liberals and Democrats. They seem to have largely swapped that for opposition based on shallow ideology and cultivated personal hatred.
The Republicans have spent a lot of more than the last decade actively degrading ideals I think are very important, like responsibility, honesty, integrity, etc. I'm not sure exactly what these concepts look like in the minds of those who have bought into their perversions, but I know that they scare me.
quote:But if the conservative movement and the conservative media and the republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.
Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement.
What, you mean having no real party choice in presidential elections, and having a congress where one party refuses to let anything get through if it would help them hurt the other party (and in the process becoming almost as unpopular as castro) is BAD for a country? what??
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: ]I would wager heavily that level of education directly correlates with how likely you are to have voted Obama.
So I'd actually agree with you, but perhaps not in the way you were hoping.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Yeah, well. Arizona. South of the west. Can't be helped (yet)
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Dear Mr. & Mr. Koch.
You can not buy our Government.
Thanks for spending your money on the effort. It sure helped the economy somehow.
Cynically yours.
Ms. Liberty
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: . . . the absolute utter delusion that Sandy was equivalent mismanagement of a humanitarian concern — to what extent it is construed a mismanagement at all, most analysts said it was a prompt and sufficient response — is just .. it comes off as vile ignorance.
Maybe not vile. Certainly dangerous ignorance by people who never got over their president being correctly called to task for dire incompetence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears.
Maybe they meant Will Smith - hey, maybe he'll do a Ronald Regan. Or, actually, that describes a lot of people.
They certainly didn't mean the Rev. Jesse Jackson who found the idea of an African American president quite "thinkable" in the 1980s. Actually, African Americans have been running for president since Frederick Douglass and fairly consistently since the 1960s.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even if he shouldn't have cried...
It's why he cried, Dan. He cried in a way that continues to be an insulting attack.
If you and I are running a footrace, and I win, you are not losing gracefully if you immediately moan about how, having won, I am now going to force everyone to get cybernetic foot implants made out of unicorn bones.
I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism? It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism? It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
I haven't posted in this thread at all. I've only read it. But Tom's comment seems to be fairly accurate to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Your selected quotes from kmboots and xavier as ~evidence of smugness~ indicate to me that you are so peeved with this thread that you are having trouble distinguishing what a smug statement actually entails, you're just frustrated with this thread and you want to work in your frustration by calling this a circlejerk.
I mean, come on
quote:I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
yeah, that's so smug. You can just see it oozing off of that quote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And that's not even touching how much I rolled my eyes at what you used to feature me heavily in Smugville Circlejerktown
take a knee on this crap, dan
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
I'm starting here, because I totally agree with you. He was.
As far as I can tell, that doesn't change anything else that I said though.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Even if he shouldn't have cried...
It's why he cried, Dan. He cried in a way that continues to be an insulting attack.
If you and I are running a footrace, and I win, you are not losing gracefully if you immediately moan about how, having won, I am now going to force everyone to get cybernetic foot implants made out of unicorn bones.
Right.
There's a difference between pointing out that someone is being a poor loser, and calling that person insane, a child, delusional, etc.
That's the issue that I have with some of the reactions to OSC's article.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism?
So... let's try this: I don't see what you think is smug about OSC's totally accurate observation that many mainstream media entities are guilty of dangerous bias.
First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever. Setting that aside, there's also the matter of tone and delivery. Part of the problem of OSC's article isn't the content, it's the delivery. Sam delivered those comments with plenty of smugness. Do you really not see that?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Your selected quotes from kmboots and xavier as ~evidence of smugness~ indicate to me that you are so peeved with this thread that you are having trouble distinguishing what a smug statement actually entails, you're just frustrated with this thread and you want to work in your frustration by calling this a circlejerk.
I mean, come on
quote:I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
yeah, that's so smug. You can just see it oozing off of that quote.
Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
Smart people vote for Obama. Republicans are trying to steal the election. The implicit assumptions form such a complete bubble that the prospect of wading in was exhausting (which is the context of when I called the thread a circlejerk— I was saying I had been reluctant to enter the conversation until then).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: pew takes a look at faith in voting
more mormons voted for bush in 2004 than voted for romney in 2012
IMO that says more about what Mormons thought of Kerry than whether they liked Bush better than Romney, but I could be wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Some of that, sure.
But much of that list I have to wonder-what DOESN'T qualify as 'smug self-congratulation', then?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Danfrank. Someday i want to write a really furious tirade that unjustly attacks people and makes absurd claims and then when people are dismayed and unapproving of my behavior have you describe me as just "crying" so its smug to attack me.
Woe is me, I'm just a little boy crying in the corner, and the MSM is literally Hitler hiding the truth and Obama is a murderer. Now if more than three people get angry at me its a CIRCLEJERK.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Danfrank. Someday i want to write a really furious tirade that unjustly attacks people and makes absurd claims and then when people are dismayed and unapproving of my behavior have you describe me as just "crying" so its smug to attack me.
Woe is me, I'm just a little boy crying in the corner, and the MSM is literally Hitler hiding the truth and Obama is a murderer. Now if more than three people get angry at me its a CIRCLEJERK.
Okay, fair enough!
It wasn't crying. It was, as you said, a tirade. Still, how does it help anything to attack him?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
... no it doesn't. haha, no. not at all. wow.
it's kmbboots talking about what kmbboots honestly expected from the election. Cool, so people talking about their feelings up to and through the end of the election count as evidence of circlejerking now? And it really isn't even the worst misreading of tone either.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah I think I'm going to take exception here.
My post was in direct response to a post by Ron that heavily implied that the "wise" all voted for Romney. I responded with a turnabout of his claim that references the reality that education level is directly correlated with tendency to vote for Obama.
Now I don't have a graph to link* you or anything, but I think its a pretty safe claim to make. If you are disputing this, I would appreciate being corrected. Its my understanding that Romney did really well with uneducated whites, and that Obama did better with the well educated and with minorities.
Of course, Ron can say that education doesn't make you "wise". Which is a different discussion altogether.
But ignoring that my post was in response to someone making the exact inverse claim is pretty disingenuous.
*Best I found is this, which while supportive is hardly proof.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think Sam is wrong about the right-wing being ignorant of certain facts, or wrong that this ignorance is dangerous?
I do agree with you that there's a difference between calling someone a poor loser and calling someone delusional, by the way. When the point of the argument is that someone lost because they were delusional, however, and contains evidence of the delusions in questions and the harm done by those delusions, I'm not sure that you can call that "smug."
To go back to the footrace analogy: if OSC had lost because he stopped halfway, screamed, and ran away from ogres only he could see, it would not be "smug" of me when later assessing the race to note that his ogre-based delusion cost him dearly. This might be especially relevant if I have spent the last two years suffering from sunlight deprivation as he built higher and higher anti-ogre walls around our homes.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Ron, that description in the email would be more impressive if that email was dated sometime in the 1990s, instead of 2009. Since it's dated 2009, it could have just have easily said "his name would be Barack Obama" and it would no more significant testimony of a prophecy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now as for stealing the election...well. Given the total absence of any evidence for the sort of fraud voter ID laws would prevent, given the list of states they have been attempted in, and given the kinds of voters who are impacted most by such laws...well.
Either it's a case of separate groups coincidentally, simultaneously working towards laws which wouldn't solve the problem they claimed to be worried about (which didn't exist to begin with) but would inhibit the turnout of their opposition, or these things weren't so coincidental at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Yeah I think I'm going to take exception here.
My post was in direct response to a post by Ron that heavily implied that the "wise" all voted for Romney. I responded with a turnabout of his claim that references the reality that education level is directly correlated with tendency to vote for Obama.
Now I don't have a graph to link* you or anything, but I think its a pretty safe claim to make. If you are disputing this, I would appreciate being corrected. Its my understanding that Romney did really well with uneducated whites, and that Obama did better with the well educated and with minorities.
Of course, Ron can say that education doesn't make you "wise". Which is a different discussion altogether.
But ignoring that my post was in response to someone making the exact inverse claim is pretty disingenuous.
*Best I found is this, which while supportive is hardly proof.
Sorry, I don't think I was being disingenuous, but regardless, I wasn't trying to be.
One thing to be clear about first: I hold you to a higher standard than Ron. So the fact that he was making the inverse claim isn't really relevant, because you still took the bait and implied the opposite.
I don't think Ron brought up education, you did in your response. "Education ≠ Wisdom" is not a different discussion at all, because you're the one who started by asserting that education was relevant to what he'd said.
Your implicit premises are: education = intelligence, and Obama voters = more intelligent. Whether or not "Obama voters = more educated" only matters insofar as we accept your premises.
Either way, though, it just struck me as a petty reverse dig... Ron says Obama voters are dumb, so you say No, Obama voters are smarter! Hah hah, you got him.
That's why I categorized it the way I did.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think Sam is wrong about the right-wing being ignorant of certain facts, or wrong that this ignorance is dangerous?
The Right Wing as a whole? The leadership of the Republican Party? The average Republican voter? What?
I think that most people are ignorant of "certain facts," many of which cause harm (so I'd say they are dangerous)... but I'm not sure what certain facts you're referring to.
In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
You beat the crap out of that strawman, Dan.
You just punch that strawman down to the ground. Burn it, if it makes you feel better.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
... no it doesn't. haha, no. not at all. wow.
it's kmbboots talking about what kmbboots honestly expected from the election. Cool, so people talking about their feelings up to and through the end of the election count as evidence of circlejerking now? And it really isn't even the worst misreading of tone either.
When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
You beat the crap out of that strawman, Dan.
You just punch that strawman down to the ground. Burn it, if it makes you feel better.
No! You can't make me.
I didn't think it was a strawman. If I did, I wouldn't have said it. In fact, I still can't see why it's a strawman.
You don't think the stuff I attributed to you? Awesome! I've been totally misreading you. Clue me in. What'd I miss?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do agree with you that there's a difference between calling someone a poor loser and calling someone delusional, by the way. When the point of the argument is that someone lost because they were delusional, however, and contains evidence of the delusions in questions and the harm done by those delusions, I'm not sure that you can call that "smug."
To go back to the footrace analogy: if OSC had lost because he stopped halfway, screamed, and ran away from ogres only he could see, it would not be "smug" of me when later assessing the race to note that his ogre-based delusion cost him dearly. This might be especially relevant if I have spent the last two years suffering from aunlight deprivation as he built higher and higher anti-ogre walls around our homes.
Yeah, I think I see what you mean.
Well, I get the analogy, anyway.
I'm just not mapping it to OSC very well. Calling him childish and off the reservation and stuff doesn't seem like a constructive argument for why he's wrong. Ditto for all the sadface laments about how far he's fallen from the pedestal he used to be on in X person's mind.
I get the impulse to say stuff like that. They're flabbergasted that he disagrees with them so strongly. But those aren't cogent arguments, they're just mockery and... I don't even know what. People too saddened to engage in mockery.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street.
I better just not address this poster with my concerns over my feelings about that statement's plausibility for concern YET engage only in inferring it's part of a campaign of smug circlejerkiness and that dan is a smug circlejerker.
quote:Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
...
come up with a Dan Frank Dictionary Definition of "circlejerk," please
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: "I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
That can be arranged.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: "I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
That can be arranged.
Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Ok so if people are having a conversation about something where the facts are controversial by your standards oh its a circlejerk. Good thing you never addressed your own presumed controversial statements, or you would have ended the circlejerk and killed our smug.
Its like saying a discussion about a plate tectonic event is a circlejerk because everyone attending to the debate thinks the earth is millions of years old but a young-earther is there who doesnt believe this and he doesnt bring up his disagreement or offer his complaints he just reads the whole event as a bunch of smug irclejerkers
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am now away from my computer for the weekend. Would one of you be kind enough to link Dan to the data I was referencing (538 should do) and to to voting irregularities in OH, PA, and FL? Thanks.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street.
I better just not address this poster with my concerns over my feelings about that statement's plausibility for concern YET engage only in inferring it's part of a campaign of smug circlejerkiness and that dan is a smug circlejerker.
Usually I love following your wacky run on sentence antics but this one went over my head.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
...
come up with a Dan Frank Dictionary Definition of "circlejerk," please
A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument. Generally don't have any conflict (or at least don't address any conflicts they might have). And generally pat each other on the back.
I can see how Kate's comment (and my example) lack specific back-patting, now that I think about it. Is that why you think I'm wrong? Or do you think my definition is bad? It's not really a dictionary term, it's pretty slangy, so maybe I'm used to seeing it used differently than you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Ok so if people are having a conversation about something where the facts are controversial by your standards oh its a circlejerk. Good thing you never addressed your own presumed controversial statements, or you would have ended the circlejerk and killed our smug.
Its like saying a discussion about a plate tectonic event is a circlejerk because everyone attending to the debate thinks the earth is millions of years old but a young-earther is there who doesnt believe this and he doesnt bring up his disagreement or offer his complaints he just reads the whole event as a bunch of smug irclejerkers
Yeah, I think a young-earther would totally see a plate-tectonics conference as a huge circlejerk.
Do you think he wouldn't? Why not? Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room and pretending the evidence is settled but its not because god says the world was created 4,000 years ago and obviously fossils were planted there by the devil and these idiots are just nattering on like none of this matters!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
They ALWAYS need new shoes. Rapidly growing teenagers!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
They ALWAYS need new shoes. Rapidly growing teenagers!
Crap, she called my bluff! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument.
Look at parks' example. Let's say we're all here discussing a plate tectonic event that just happened and among the discussion are a number of references to the geological age of the earth being more than a few thousand years. Under your definition, if all of the people discussing what happened "I felt some of the vibrations," and "we had some indication that this was coming" and "i was kind of worried we would get a tsunami" or even include scientific talk in accord with known facts about the event and there's no argument and everyone mostly agrees, congratulations, that's a circlejerk.
And then let's say a person who disagrees with plate tectonics is lurking and instead of presenting his own opinion or saying "you keep taking this whole geological age thing as a GIVEN but I would like to disagree that it is a given" and doesn't present anything at all to the conversation and instead just opts to just be peeved about it and write it all off as smug and circlejerky.
It's about as useless as both your definition and your actions, which disparage and traduce and write off other people's participation and tone needlessly via your own disagreement.
Wait, it's actually MORE useless, because instead of just not presenting at all, you just kind of hop in and make sure to make mention of how smug and circlejerky it is and how much it annoys you. Well after you had PLENTY of opportunity to take substantive umbrage with the established facts you disagree with. You managed the least useful, most annoying option, complete with some value judgments applied to other people's participation in the thread as part of it.
Or in the words of people who put everything in overly wrapped up pseudowise terms "it was never about the thread, it was about you"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But... I did argue. I argued with Destineer on one of the comments that absolutely would have made the "circlejerk list" above had I not already addressed it.
And the only context in which I even said the word "circlejerk" was right then, when I brought up the example of circklejerkiness that I was (at that time) willing to start an argument on.
I also referred to other stuff in the thread as a circlejerk, which I meant to be shorthand for:
1) I disagreed with other things that were being said but I didn't have the energy to pick any other arguments out at that time.
2) Not the least because, unlike the comment Destineer had made, I didn't really anticipate a fruitful discussion arising out of them.
3) More importantly, it was right after the election, you guys had won, and I thought it would be petty and annoying to pick a bunch of little fights over stuff that wouldn't go anywhere. Why bring people down like that?
Hell, I didn't even say it annoyed me! I said you were welcome to it! I meant that sincerely.
I'm really not getting your point here, I think.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Dan, I'd just like to say that I while I largely disagree with you that this thread was a circle jerk, you've been patient, provided examples of what you consider example of the smugness, and still crack jokes at genuinely funny things throughout this. If more people (both conservative and liberal) took a similar approach as you, I think there'd be a lot less demonizing the other side. I just wanted to say thanks. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
" A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument. Generally don't have any conflict (or at least don't address any conflicts they might have). And generally pat each other on the back."
So we currently agreed with, avoided argument with, and pat Ron on the back, ...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: " A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument. Generally don't have any conflict (or at least don't address any conflicts they might have). And generally pat each other on the back."
So we currently agreed with, avoided argument with, and pat Ron on the back, ...
Hah, oh, wow! Yeah, good point!
My only rebuttal to that is: I don't count Ron.
Sorry, I just... I thought that was a given.
There's technically no "Ignore" function on this forum, but yeah. Assume everything I've been saying has been from the standpoint of Ron's posts being hidden.
I still read people's responses to him, though. And hold them to what I think is a reasonable standard. Hence my taking exception with Xavier's response to Ron, but not Ron himself. Because Xavier seems like someone who can be reasoned with.
To get back to our old analogy: I'm some Young-Earth Creationist in a suit and tie who's gone to the conference to argue with one or two people about fossil records or something. Ron is some guy with a sandwich board wandering the halls of the conference hiding from security and harassing anyone who passes by.
He just doesn't count. Conference is still a circlejerk, elephant in the room, the devil made fossils, etc. etc.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Dan, I'd just like to say that I while I largely disagree with you that this thread was a circle jerk, you've been patient, provided examples of what you consider example of the smugness, and still crack jokes at genuinely funny things throughout this. If more people (both conservative and liberal) took a similar approach as you, I think there'd be a lot less demonizing the other side. I just wanted to say thanks.
Thanks yourself.
I disagree with Sam a lot, but I also think he's one of the funniest guys on this forum. He's like Jon Stewart, in that way.
Not that Jon Stewart is on this forum. You get what I mean.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I honestly don't understand what was smug about me posting my honest opinion of Romney's concession speech. Am I not allowed to post an opinion if I'm not in the minority without it being construed as smug?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Let's say we're all here discussing a plate tectonic event that just happened...
Not that this meta-discussion over circlejerks isn't fascinating and all, but speaking of tectonic events, apparently this political historian, Allan Lichtman has devised a means of predicting elections looking as tectonic events. Move over Nate Silver. From NPR:
quote: Lichtman analyzed presidential elections between 1860 and 1980. Over that 120-year period, he looked for markers of stability and markers of upheaval.
Much of what he found is intuitively obvious: When the country was in recession or there was a foreign policy disaster during the tenure of the last administration, the incumbent party was likely to lose. When there was a major domestic or foreign policy success, the economy was doing well, or an incumbent president was running for re-election, the party in power tended to hold on to power.
What Lichtman did was take his data seriously: He found that in every election between 1860 and 1980, when the answers to six or more of the 13 questions he devised went against the party in power, there was an upheaval — the challenger won.
He applied the model to subsequent elections. Starting in 1984, the model has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every election — sometimes months or even years before the election takes place.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
By the way, you[Dan] wanted a link to the Pew study which showed that in the MSM the candidates received roughly equal shares of positive, negative, and mixed coverage. Here's the article, though it has underscores and I'm on my phone so you may need to copy and paste it: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012
Summary: President Obama and Governor Romney received roughly equal shares of the types of coverage in the late campaign cycle. (Romney's negative coverage came from his quick criticism of Obama on Benghazi, Obama's came from his poor performance in the first debate.) Fox News is demonstrably biased against Obama just as MSNBC is significantly biased against Romney. Indeed, MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox was against Obama.
Finally, while their shares of positive, negative, and mixed coverage from the MSM were roughly equal at the end of this year, in 2008 Pew found that there was significantly more favorable coverage for Obama than McCain.
So the short of it, there wasn't a MSM bias for either candidate in the late stages of the campaign. (I'd point out that their sample doesn't include the period of time when Romney's 47% video was covered, nor the issues with his Taxes or his botched foreign trip.) So it's plausible that over the course of the past year, there was bias, but not in the last couple months.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I honestly don't understand what was smug about me posting my honest opinion of Romney's concession speech. Am I not allowed to post an opinion if I'm not in the minority without it being construed as smug?
I don't think that was smug.
Actually, in my original comment, the only person I called smug was Destineer, or really Destineer's friend. I'm not sure your comment really even qualifies as part of a circlejerk, though. I guess just the naked contempt. That sort of contempt doesn't seem, to me, to be the comment of someone who expects to engage in a rational discussion with people who disagree.
Do you see what I mean, at all? I may have just been stretching a bit when I included it, though.
Vadon: Thanks for the link!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
There wasn't meant to be any contempt, naked or otherwise. I just honestly haven't seen anything from Romney that I'd consider to be a genuine moment, and I'd sincerely like to. If someone has a good shot at being the leader of my country I'd like to know something about what they really believe.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Fair enough. I totally misread it, then. My mistake! Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, context matters. It's easy to see how it might read like a dogpile with all of us posting stuff at once.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Indeed, MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox was against Obama.
Maybe its me nitpicking, but not reporting equivalent quantities of "negative stories" is not necessarily evidence of bias.
If back in the 1950 my news organization reported more favorable stories about Harry Truman than Joseph Stalin, that doesn't mean that its biased. Maybe there just were more negative news about one over the other.
quote:My only rebuttal to that is: I don't count Ron...
Which could be partly why I was left scratching my head. I don't know how arguing with another poster (snarkily or otherwise) could possibly be contributing to a 'circle-jerk'.
[ November 09, 2012, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
All that aside, the two most important things to come out of that election both involved 'writing on the wall' things. The first was about changing demographics and why the gop had screwed itself with future voters. The second thing is how people got to witness the conservative news'cocoon' at work. People have actually gotten to test it. Is starting to be a thing that people took note of, and recognize how it hurts conservatives.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There's a gaping hole in these arguments that demographics are going to kill the Republicans: people writing on this topic always seem to forget that in the US, the only voters who are empowered in the first place are swing state voters.
Show me some studies that don't just count the growing minority population of the nation as a whole, but either (a) show that these demographic changes are occurring in important swing states or (b) that they threaten to turn previously secure red states into swing states. Then I'll be impressed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I don't think anyone forgot. This place even takes on the fact that the ec makes only a small amount of states matter. These states matter because they're so close. Some of these states would not have mattered a decade ago but are already midway between red and blue. We used to be a red state. Over bush's term, the demographics went over the edge. We are now looking like a permanent loss for the republicans. Colorado is now a blue state.
If the same trends continue, Florida will be solidly blue. Most todays swing states will be. And formerly solid red states will be toss ups. Texas will be competitive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Destineer: That's a good point. One should also consider though that with that overall trend, in 10-20 years we will see strongholds become "left/right leaning" and also "new battleground states". I mean sure, maybe Latino voters aren't going to be evenly dispersed, but you can't escape the math. Either the Republicans will court women voters and Latinos, or they won't and will have to adapt to losing chunks of those huge constituencies.
edit: I'm not sure that's possible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's remotely possible. It's really, really very hard. Political identities, for most people, calcify in young age. If someone is 23 years old and they vote democrat, they will most likely vote democrat through their entire lives. People don't really change as they get older (and as noted in a study approaching the issue of "people turn conservative as they get older" — the opposite effect happens; people lean slightly more liberal as they get older)
There are some things the GOP can do to reverse the trend. They are, by and large, doing the opposite.
Since I am unabashedly anti-GOP, these are things I (mostly) like, and why I consider the tea party an unwitting ally; they are doing everything that works out the best for liberals in the long-term.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Indeed, MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox was against Obama.
Maybe its me nitpicking, but not reporting equivalent quantities of "negative stories" is not necessarily evidence of bias.
If back in the 1950 my news organization reported more favorable stories about Harry Truman than Joseph Stalin, that doesn't mean that its biased. Maybe there just were more negative news about one over the other.
You're right, Xavier. This is a great reason why a study like that is deeply flawed. It ignores too much context.
I haven't had a chance to read up on the study itself yet, but this is exactly the sort of thing that I was wondering about.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:My only rebuttal to that is: I don't count Ron...
Which could be partly why I was left scratching my head. I don't know how arguing with another poster (snarkily or otherwise) could possibly be contributing to a 'circle-jerk'.
Yep, I hear you. It honestly didn't even occur to me to count Ron until Parkour blatantly spelled it out for me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Destineer, I don't have a link but I have heard projections that Texas will be battleground in ten years.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: There wasn't meant to be any contempt, naked or otherwise. I just honestly haven't seen anything from Romney that I'd consider to be a genuine moment, and I'd sincerely like to. If someone has a good shot at being the leader of my country I'd like to know something about what they really believe.
JT, there was a time he was defending his faith, thinking he was then off air at a radio broadcast. Something like objecting to the common portrayal of the LDS Church as monolithic in belief and enforcement thereof. It was a genuine, passionate moment. I think Slate or Salon referenced it -- I'll try to find that.
===
Edited to add:
Link is here Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My personal perception of Romney is of a generally good guy, but for whom some ambitions come completely first. This is true for many politicians, and gets more likely the higher you go, but his campaign's willingness to try and maneuver in such radically different directions struck me as above average, though I can't be objective about that. I was struck repeatedly with an impression that there was little he wouldn't say or do that wouldn't be itself somehow disgraceful-such as for example at times downplaying his agenda on abortion, but at other times campaigning on how against it he was. By that I mean I don't consider either position disgraceful, even though I disagreed with the second, but when taken together...anyway.
Probably for that reason, his concession speech, signaling as it did the end of his presidential ambitions, rang as solid and decent and even graceful or excellent. This may say much more about me and the impressions I read into him given the context, than anything else.
----------
Now as for the whole notion of smug circle jerks...well, sure. Samprimary is engaging in a lot of that. It's sort of his thing. I'll happily give you that, Dan. But the rest? It was a very long, hard fought, and (supposedly) close race with one side making a host of claims about what the will of the American people really was that turned out to be badly wrong in many many cases.
Is there a way to say to someone, "You were wrong about this thing," when the thing in question was a prediction of say two feet of snow and the actual weather was a light balmy rain?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: If back in the 1950 my news organization reported more favorable stories about Harry Truman than Joseph Stalin, that doesn't mean that its biased. Maybe there just were more negative news about one over the other.
I agree with your larger point that negative coverage in isolation is not evidence of bias when the only thing that can be reasonably covered is negative. It's why I tried to emphasize that the study didn't include Romney's troubles overseas, his unreleased taxes, and the 47% video. He received a lot of coverage for those things without much in the way of redeeming coverage. In my opinion, during that time, there's a reason he didn't receive positive press attention--he didn't do anything worthy of positive coverage. Regardless of my opinion on Governor Romney, his campaign was a disaster for much of the year.
To extend your point with my own example, if I'm reporting on the devastation of a tornado, it's not me being biased against tornadoes. Tornadoes do a lot of damage without any redeeming qualities. During much of the year, Governor Romney spent much of the time with his foot in his mouth. I don't think it's necessarily an indication of the Governor's character, but at the very least, he was making mistakes. A lot of them. It's not media bias when all you've got is a long list of faux-pas to report on.
That being said, I stand by my claim that MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox was against Obama. When you compare their positive-negative-mixed coverage to the main-stream media, there's a gap. When there's a gap in positive coverage between news sources, it indicates selection on what stories are being covered. It's not like Stalin or a tornado where you genuinely don't have something positive to report. It's that you are choosing to emphasize the negatives over the positives of a candidate.
I'm pretty sleep deprived and feel like I'm not being particularly clear in this post, so I'll just end by saying I agree with your larger point that negative coverage isn't evidence of bias. But I believe that in this case, it's fair to say that both MSNBC and Fox were biased in certain directions.
If your contention is with me saying that MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox is against Obama, then I think there's a fair point to be made there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:That being said, I stand by my claim that MSNBC was more biased against Romney than Fox was against Obama
Might just be. I mean, MSNBC has just sort of boldly decided to adopt the FOX model, and damned if they're not going to get rewarded for it.
Hard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
results are in
national vote for house representatives in total flipped six percent, and now democratic house representatives are receiving a majority of all popular votes.
so, officially, THIS YEAR, if republicans did not have artificial overrepresentation from gerrymandering, the republicans would most likely be a minority party in the house of reps.
That is actually way faster than I anticipated.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
On one hand Fox sorta just blatantly out and out lies about Obama and his policies, what has MSNBC done to Romney?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
devoted significant quantities of airtime and effort towards negative portrayal of Romney and expressing a tone of doubt towards his campaign more in line with his actual electoral chances
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/28/282471/the-platinum-coin-option/?mobile=nc]Possible way to a avoid the 'fiscal cliff', print two platinum coins worth a trillion$ each.[/url
For laughed shape them into the shape of balls.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
There are some things the GOP can do to reverse the trend. They are, by and large, doing the opposite.
That its the stark part of this election. The republicans have a lesson they have to learn, which they can't if they keep convincing themselves that the media was colluding against them with unfair bias. In fact, their own system and their own tendencies worked against them and created a reality bubble that GIGO'd them.
So do they learn? Out do they convince themselves that its all about the mainstream media colluding against them, and continue to fail at pundarts.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: There wasn't meant to be any contempt, naked or otherwise. I just honestly haven't seen anything from Romney that I'd consider to be a genuine moment, and I'd sincerely like to. If someone has a good shot at being the leader of my country I'd like to know something about what they really believe.
JT, there was a time he was defending his faith, thinking he was then off air at a radio broadcast. Something like objecting to the common portrayal of the LDS Church as monolithic in belief and enforcement thereof. It was a genuine, passionate moment. I think Slate or Salon referenced it -- I'll try to find that.
Thanks! Looking now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: In fact, their own system and their own tendencies worked against them and created a reality bubble that GIGO'd them.
A man boasts to me of Momentum, his greatest invention. "To victory," he cries, taking flight. I light a candle from the wax of his wings.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've been reading the final runup on commentary on nate silver and the backlash he got from pundits by sort of relegating their constant horse-race bloviations to a much more useless sphere.
quote:Nate's really putting his cock on the chopping block with predicting Florida going blue and predicting Obama wins the national popular vote by 2.7%. It means that even if Obama narrowly wins, Nate's detractors are going to go "this hack thought that Obama was going to win Florida. Now, a special comment from our senior analyst Dick Morris..."
quote:He was already there. Florida has been a toss up all week he might as well go big, and the momentum, god help me, really is pro-Obama.
quote:For the record, Nate has a model. He's not doing anything except data entry.
quote:It's the same kind of reaction that serious statisticians get in the baseball world, too. People hate it when their way of knowing things is challenged.
quote:Haha, I love the implication that we would actually be talking about important issues of substance if only Nate Silver and his ilk weren't around, as if pundits, or anyone really considering the audience pundits get, actually gives shit about anything important anymore.
quote:Worse, I think Nate actually does the horse race thing for them entirely. They're terrified that they'll have to start talking about whether certain policies are good instead of what America will think of a policy. One has a right answer, the other one is what they want.
quote:Is it fair to say (just going off of what I see on Twitter/Facebook/pundit shows/radio/etc.) that at this point Nate Silver is one of the ten most hated figures nationwide among right-wingers? Not bad for a guy who was just known to few hardcore politicos four years ago, and who did it all from behind a keyboard.
quote:It's seems pretty clear really. A statistical model with a proven track record will eventually be seen as much more reliable than any pundit. The pundits are terrified they might have to actually talk about something of substance or back up their gut opinions with more than hot air to compete with a statistical model, so they're trying their damnedest to kill it in the crib.
quote:I know I shouldn't cross post but Obama is 70% on intrade. Hes half that on Betfair. If you're risk averse, not in the US and dont hate money you should be arbing the shit out of that. Of course if you're not risk averse you should be having your max. bet on Obama.
quote:Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise: Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is shooting to the top of Amazon.
But I hear that once you unskew the polls the actual bestseller is Atlas Shrugged. :smug:
quote: I'm still shocked that Intrade took forever to catch up to Nate Silver's model. 70% even at 9 PM, IIRC, while the European betting markets were at 85%+. Are there a lot of Republicans on that site?
^ note to above: YES. Which is why the conservative data/'gut feeling'/toss-up mentality bubble earned me cold hard cash.
[ November 11, 2012, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is one assumption that everyone is making about Fox news that needs to be questioned.
The assumption is that Fox News wanted and worked hard for Mitt Romney and the Republican's to win.
The fear is that they tried to manipulate the system so that their chosen candidate would win.
But suppose that Fox News only wanted to make as big a profit as legally possible. You can try doing that by reporting the news, but that is boring. Bored views don't watch. Ad revenues decline.
Or you could try to manipulate the news so it represents not a Republican dream world, but a world where disasters of historic proportions are occurring every minute of the day. Stay tuned as this crisis feeds into the next, or you are doomed.
The Republican primaries was a series of weekly underdog stories. Will this underdog beat that underdog or will they be crushed by the evil powers that be.
Then Romney and Obama ran at a neck to neck basis. Every time it looked like one or the other was ahead, some major crisis occurred and the world had to watch.
Perhaps the Obama major victory was foreseeable and predictable, but that would have cut into ad revenue. As such for every prediction based in fact, some theory or other had to pull everything into doubt.
The racetrack is the winner of every horse race. If you want to imagine a media conspiracy, remember who was treating the election of our President as a 18 month long horse race.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nothing you are saying is really incompatible. Fox news can be essentially working for the republican party as an institution, and it can be doing so perfectly in line with doing so for profit.
Even if the election was looking massively in favor of Romney, they would have still prepped and discussed the issue horse-race style. They would have still done so within the same bounds of their measurable bias and collusion with republican interests, as well as their proven tendency to mislead.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I've been reading the final runup on commentary on nate silver and the backlash he got from pundits by sort of relegating their constant horse-race bloviations to a much more useless sphere.
quote:Nate's really putting his cock on the chopping block with predicting Florida going blue and predicting Obama wins the national popular vote by 2.7%. It means that even if Obama narrowly wins, Nate's detractors are going to go "this hack thought that Obama was going to win Florida. Now, a special comment from our senior analyst Dick Morris..."
quote:He was already there. Florida has been a toss up all week he might as well go big, and the momentum, god help me, really is pro-Obama.
quote:For the record, Nate has a model. He's not doing anything except data entry.
quote:It's the same kind of reaction that serious statisticians get in the baseball world, too. People hate it when their way of knowing things is challenged.
quote:Haha, I love the implication that we would actually be talking about important issues of substance if only Nate Silver and his ilk weren't around, as if pundits, or anyone really considering the audience pundits get, actually gives shit about anything important anymore.
quote:Worse, I think Nate actually does the horse race thing for them entirely. They're terrified that they'll have to start talking about whether certain policies are good instead of what America will think of a policy. One has a right answer, the other one is what they want.
quote:Is it fair to say (just going off of what I see on Twitter/Facebook/pundit shows/radio/etc.) that at this point Nate Silver is one of the ten most hated figures nationwide among right-wingers? Not bad for a guy who was just known to few hardcore politicos four years ago, and who did it all from behind a keyboard.
quote:It's seems pretty clear really. A statistical model with a proven track record will eventually be seen as much more reliable than any pundit. The pundits are terrified they might have to actually talk about something of substance or back up their gut opinions with more than hot air to compete with a statistical model, so they're trying their damnedest to kill it in the crib.
quote:I know I shouldn't cross post but Obama is 70% on intrade. Hes half that on Betfair. If you're risk averse, not in the US and dont hate money you should be arbing the shit out of that. Of course if you're not risk averse you should be having your max. bet on Obama.
quote:Nate Silver's book "The Signal and the Noise: Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is shooting to the top of Amazon.
But I hear that once you unskew the polls the actual bestseller is Atlas Shrugged. :smug:
quote: I'm still shocked that Intrade took forever to catch up to Nate Silver's model. 70% even at 9 PM, IIRC, while the European betting markets were at 85%+. Are there a lot of Republicans on that site?
^ note to above: YES. Which is why the conservative data/'gut feeling'/toss-up mentality bubble earned me cold hard cash.
Oh you, :allears:
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
short copy: if anyone falls off the fiscal cliff, it's conservatives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And yet, we're the ones who lose. For it to be a true fiscal cliff, they should have all tied their salaries to a deal being passed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
who in congress actually cares about their salaries? Their real salary comes from being paid for their votes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Don't know, but Newt Gingrich comes across as kinda interesting to listen to on the Colbert.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: who in congress actually cares about their salaries? Their real salary comes from being paid for their votes.
Oh they care about every dollar. Why would they be any different than any other person? We hate to lose money. We can spend it all day long, hate to lose it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyrhawn needs to edit the thread title.
EDIT: Thanks.
[ November 14, 2012, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That article did not surprise me one bit. Of course he wouldn't take responsibility for the outcome of the election even though it was his own flawed policies that turned the voters towards Obama.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Seriously. Did he not learn anything from the fallout of his "47 percent" video? He may have said afterwards that he was completely wrong about the whole thing, but obviously he didn't really believe it, because he's right back to seeing large segments of the population—especially the darker-skinned ones—as greedy parasites.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Did he not learn anything from the fallout of his "47 percent" video?
That keeping his financial backers happy is more important than anything else, obviously.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Blech.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Blech.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seriously. What a sour note to end on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Did he not learn anything from the fallout of his "47 percent" video?
That keeping his financial backers happy is more important than anything else, obviously.
Sure, but what does is matter now? It's not like he's going to run again. Twice bitten thrice shy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, good old "money and the ethnic vote"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Did he not learn anything from the fallout of his "47 percent" video?
That keeping his financial backers happy is more important than anything else, obviously.
Sure, but what does is matter now? It's not like he's going to run again. Twice bitten thrice shy.
Habit?
Also, keep the people with power in your party happy, and you might get a political appointment a few years down the road.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ah, good old "money and the ethnic vote"
Oh, Jacques!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Well, he is nice enough to confirm for everyone that he is exactly what what we called him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Did he not learn anything from the fallout of his "47 percent" video?
That keeping his financial backers happy is more important than anything else, obviously.
Sure, but what does is matter now? It's not like he's going to run again. Twice bitten thrice shy.
Habit?
Also, keep the people with power in your party happy, and you might get a political appointment a few years down the road.
I think that's the Randian class war narrative that the extreme pro-business wing of the Republican party is trying to push. I expect we'll see more of it coming, especially around the 2014 and 2016 elections.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like i said, the only people who can save the party aren't at the rudder.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: McCain skips Benghazi briefing, gets testy when questioned by CNN
Posted by CNN Senior Congressional Producer Ted Barrett
(CNN) - Most of the Republican members of a Senate committee investigating the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, skipped an classified briefing by administration officials on the incident Wednesday, CNN has learned.
The missing lawmakers included Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who at the time of the top-secret briefing held a press conference in the Capitol to call for the creation of a Watergate-type special Congressional committee to investigate how and why the attack took place.
McCain, who has accused President Barack Obama of not telling the truth about the Benghazi attack, said that even though there are several committees involved in the probe, only a select committee could streamline the information flow and resolve the "many unanswered questions" about the tragedy.
When CNN approached McCain in a Capitol hallway Thursday morning, the senator refused to comment about why he missed the briefing, which was conducted by top diplomatic, military and counter-terrorism officials. Instead, McCain got testy when pressed to say why he wasn't there.
"I have no comment about my schedule and I'm not going to comment on how I spend my time to the media," McCain said.
Asked why he wouldn't comment, McCain grew agitated: "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?”
When CNN noted that McCain had missed a key meeting on a subject the senator has been intensely upset about, McCain said, "I'm upset that you keep badgering me."
While McCain refused to shed light on why he didn't show, his spokesman Brian Rogers emailed CNN a short time later with an explanation. He blamed it on a "scheduling error" but wouldn't provide any more detail.
According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, only three of the eight GOP members of the committee attended the two hour briefing that ran from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. ET. By contrast, seven of the nine Democratic members were there.
McCain's press conference took place at noon.
Hrrrrmmm..
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I used to really like McCain up until the 2008 election. He struck me as a fairly reasonable guy who was willing to work with the other side. What happened to him? Or has he always been like this and it just took me a while to notice?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
From what I've read hes never really been graceful in defeat, when he lost in 2000 he 'reinvented' himself in 2001 and tended to support Democrats and reached across the aisle to cause the BushAdmin trouble, losing to Obama he's reversed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so I guess 5 of the 8 republicans skipped attending that hearing. before complaining about a lack of information.
which i assume means 'a lack of information which in any way qualifies the Benghazigate proposal'
i mean i am legitimately interested in claims of wrongdoing in that incident but, my god
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting that Sen. McCain is proposing a new committee since in January he loses his spot on the armed services committee where he is currently the top-ranking member.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man, this all has shades of .. the hell was his name again, kenneth starr? they are desperately angling for any sort of scandal to stick to obama and hoping that there's a new monica lewinsky waiting for them in the wings.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To be fair, it's clear the administration was not forthcoming. I've been hearing that Patraeus indicated the CIA ommitted all mention of Al Qaeda from the original memo they sent the DOS. No explanation why yet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings. "
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I used to really like McCain up until the 2008 election. He struck me as a fairly reasonable guy who was willing to work with the other side. What happened to him? Or has he always been like this and it just took me a while to notice?
I wrote this back in 2005.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I thought he was fantastic in 2000. I was so dismayed when Bush greased him. But not enough to not vote red in 2000.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I used to really like McCain up until the 2008 election. He struck me as a fairly reasonable guy who was willing to work with the other side. What happened to him? Or has he always been like this and it just took me a while to notice?
I feel your a little hard on McCain there, there's idealism and then there's the fact that the Spoiler Effect would've absolutely handed the Presidency to Al Gore; which would've been the preferred outcome for you?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
What's most interesting to me in that thread is the degree with which the idea of teaching ID in schools was coddled. I don't think suggesting that "only idiots" would support teaching it in public schools would get nearly that much heat these days. Though maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
On this forum? Right, the demographics have certainly changed, that's true.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Man, I was pretty pissy back then. It sure sent me into a fury when Bush got re-elected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings. "
I read this later in the day after posting. But thanks. I think Fox News should run a retraction at this point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I legitimately don't think that's an option for them; they legitimately have way too much invested in providing a narrative outlet for conspiracy theory/pending outrage at the obama administration.
At this point they serve psychological needs for an ideological demographic moreso than they are committed to any sort of unbiased journalistic integrity. Said demo is not interested in hearing "okay it looks like benghazigate is overblown," they are interested in having Fox News cater to the 'real news that the Liberal Media is hiding' and be invested in a huge scandal that confirms the applied image of Obama as a scandalous and impeachable failure.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
god that sounds so extreme and it sounds so full of hyperbole, but its not, it's just a business-based analysis of what fox news does.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so i guess there's yet another israeli everything's-terrible crisis. what, is netanyahu up for re-election soon or what
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The stories coming out are interesting depending on the source. Most of them focus on the Gazan rockets, and don't get me wrong, I think that's something worthy of concern, but Gazan injuries from the IDF Air Force strikes either get buried in the story or don't come up at all.
And the casualty count isn't even close to being equivalent. The IDF seems to have taken out all their public buildings, attacked their press buildings to kill their journalists (calling them fair game), and has already killed dozens of civilians.
They tell the civilians to get out of the way, but where is out of the way when bombs are dropping into the middle of neighborhoods and a million and a half civilians are living in the middle of a tiny warzone? There's nowhere to go, especially with IDF troops massed at the border.
I'm sympathetic, I'm more than sympathetic, to Israel's problem, I have a couple friends over there, but the response doesn't really seem proportional to the threat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ah! yup. yuuup. election coming up. all makes more sense now. the response is not proportional to an external threat, it's proportional to an internal opportunity to capitalize on yet another gaza conflict
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"obama is putting the country on a path to complete ruin! god needs to cause complete ruin to the country to save us from obama!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"obama is putting the country on a path to complete ruin! god needs to cause complete ruin to the country to save us from obama!"
Funny, I've thought for a long time now that complete ruin was the only way we'd actually solve ANY of our problems. Americans don't like to recognize a catastrophe is a catastrophe until it's already happened.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I am with you, Lyr.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
"obama is putting the country on a path to complete ruin! god needs to cause complete ruin to the country to save us from obama!"
Funny, I've thought for a long time now that complete ruin was the only way we'd actually solve ANY of our problems. Americans don't like to recognize a catastrophe is a catastrophe until it's already happened.
People often don't change their behaviors even when those behaviors cause significant ruination.
I think the way we'll solve problems is by letting our bad ideas die (and in many cases this includes waiting for people with sufficiently entrenched bad ideas to physically die) and thereby making incremental progress towards improvement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of our problems simply won't wait that long. We're already in the process of wrecking things, maybe not beyond repair, but to the point where digging ourselves out of the hole will be infinitely more painful than the pain caused by solving them now would be.
But we can't see it because the vast majority of people still have running water, power, cable TV, computer and iphones. So long as the trains run on time, people don't care about the crumbling foundation around the tracks.
They'll only start to notice when the train derails.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
re: israel crisis and my work
at this point everyone here is only looking at it in terms of market effects. nobody cares about the moral issues, they just calculate how long hamas is going to fire rockets to prompt israel to bomb houses full of children and how long israel is going to bomb said houses and whether this is just agitation to test the system and call up reservists in plan to prod iran, everyone's like "don't care, sh*t's f*cked, watchin my money"
cooool huh
the world is such an awesome place
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think that, rather than the Boston tea party, they have taken inspiration from the Mad Hatter's tea party.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
iirc they don't even really know what they're talking about in terms of the method by which they would hijack this election using the EC. it's a house quorum?
business as usual for the tea party and the constitution
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: iirc they don't even really know what they're talking about in terms of the method by which they would hijack this election using the EC. it's a house quorum?
That's correct. Haven't read the article but if they're talking about a two thirds quorum in the EC they're completely wrong. Doesn't exist.
Okay, read the article. Even at the bottom they apparently admit that they're just straight up wrong. Either way, I'm with Jindal on this one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One appreciable aspect of this story, aside from highlighting the profound stupidity and malice of some of the biggest Tea Party leadership, is that it can hopefully move us a step closer to dropping the idea that the leadership of the larger, more powerful Tea Party groups are anything like good, concerned citizens who simply disagree and rather treat them with the contempt and suspicion they've long earned.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm guessing that we're not too far away from really hacking down on the procedural filibuster, considering that it is the tool with which the republicans have managed to completely cripple congress and the intransigence is fairly damning at this point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We'll know soon. The Senate has the option to change the rule with a simple majority vote at the start of the next term, and many Democrats are pushing to have it revert back to its old format where Senators would have to actually stand and deliver instead of simply making every vote a 60 vote margin.
While senators could still theoretically halt the passage of any bill they want, it would be much more public, and they'd literally grind the Senate to a halt while doing so. Instead of simply putting the bill in a drawer, they'd have to hold the entire chamber hostage until the other side agreed to give up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:and many Democrats are pushing to have it revert back to its old format where Senators would have to actually stand and deliver instead of simply making every vote a 60 vote margin.
Yes, please.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just did a little reading. Apparently Harry Reid has said publicly that he, for certain, intends to change the filibuster rule to at the very least ban filibusters that stop bills from reaching the floor. He also is in favor of pushing to make Senators hold the floor and speak during an active filibuster.
A day or two ago he got into a nasty debate with Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor where McConnell basically accused him of trying to wield ultimate power in the Senate, while Reid dismissed it as nonsense, since at the end of the day the power of the filibuster is still intact.
Reid seems very serious about the change, and he has a lot of support within his own caucus. McConnell is trying to scare old timer Democrats into not voting for it, threatening the evils that will come when the GOP is back in power.
Many are also worried that it's poor timing with the fiscal cliff negotiations, but Reid seems hellbent on it, so we'll see. At the end of the day, it's rather uncertain what actual effect this would have on the Senate, but if the very least it does is to open the Senate up to more coverage of bills being discussed and filibustered, then I approve.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A day or two ago he got into a nasty debate with Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor where McConnell basically accused him of trying to wield ultimate power in the Senate, while Reid dismissed it as nonsense, since at the end of the day the power of the filibuster is still intact.
quote:The specific changes Reid envisions aren’t particularly dramatic: He wants to be able to make the motion to debate a bill — but not the vote to pass it — immune to the filibuster; he wants the time it would take to break a filibuster to be shorter; and he wants whoever is filibustering to have to hold the floor of the Senate and talk. None of these changes would alter the basic reality of the modern U.S. Senate, which is that it takes 60 votes to get almost anything done. In my view, that means they wouldn’t do much to fix the Senate at all.
Nevertheless, McConnell is furious. But many of the arguments he was making on the floor Monday don’t hold up to even the barest scrutiny.
1. “What these Democrats have in mind is a fundamental change to the way the Senate operates.”
McConnell is referring to the Democrats’ proposal to change Senate rules with 51 votes rather than 67. But his outrage isn’t particularly convincing. As Senate whip, McConnell was a key player in the GOP’s 2005 effort to change the filibuster rules using — you guessed it — 51 votes. As he said at the time, “This is not the first time a minority of Senators has upset a Senate tradition or practice, and the current Senate majority intends to do what the majority in the Senate has often done–use its constitutional authority under article I, section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.”
Now, Reid, at the time, was steadfastly opposed to changing the rules with 51 votes. He condemned the idea as “breaking the rules to change the rules.” So McConnell isn’t the Senate’s only inconsistent member on this point. But the fact is that McConnell was right the first time: The reason that Republicans believed they could change the rules with 51 votes in 2005 and Democrats believe they can do the same today is that they can.
2. “The minority voices the Senate was built to protect.”
Oh, enough of this old saw. The idea that you need a two-thirds vote to change the Senate rules doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, and some scholars even think it’s unconstitutional. It comes from the 1975 deal in which the total votes needed to break a filibuster was lowered from two-thirds of the Senate to three-fifths. As for the filibuster itself, it didn’t emerge until decades after the founding of the Senate.
The American system of government was built to protect minority voices, but the Founding Fathers explicitly rejected designing the Congress around a supermajority requirement. In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”
3. “Until now, you could say that protecting the rights of political minorities have always been a defining characteristic of the Senate. That’s why members of both parties have always defended it, whether they were in the majority or the minority.”
It’s flatly false that the Senate has always rejected efforts to weaken the power of the filibuster. Before 1917, for instance, there was no way to end a filibuster at all. The Senate thought that excessive, and so they created the cloture process. Before 1975, the majority needed a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate (or at least of the senators who were present) to break a filibuster. That was brought down to three-fifths. Both of these reforms, by the way, are far more significant than what the Democrats are proposing, which wouldn’t change the votes required to end the filibuster at all.
Meanwhile, it’s particularly rich for McConnell to say that both majorities and minorities consider the filibuster sacrosanct, as he himself was a ringleader in the effort to eliminate the minority’s ability to filibuster judicial nominees in 2005. “Even if one strongly disagrees with a nomination, the proper course of action is not to obstruct a potential judge through the filibuster but to vote against him or her,” he said at the time. “Unfortunately, this obstruction necessitates that we restore these norms and traditions, and that includes through the use of the so-called ‘constitutional option.’”
4. “If a bare majority can proceed to any bill it chose and once on that bill the majority leader, all by himself, can shut out all amendments that aren’t to his liking, then those who elected us to advocate for their views will have lost their voice in the legislative process.”
McConnell’s complaint that Reid often doesn’t allow amendments is legitimate, but unrelated to the rules changes under discussion. His complaint that Reid’s proposed changes to the filibuster will mean the minority “will have lost their voice” is, however, absurd.
Reid is basically proposing two things: First, no more filibusters on the motion to move to debate a bill. Second, if you want to filibuster a bill, you have to actually take the floor of the Senate and speak. Reid’s proposed changes might, in other words, end “quiet” filibusters, in which a bill is killed by a 60-vote challenge even though there’s no debate on a bill. But so long as the minority was willing to hold the floor of the Senate and, well, use its voice, it would have all the power it currently has to filibuster a bill.
5. “[Reid] preferred to write legislation in the confines of his room rather than in the public eye, as he did most famously with the drafting of Obamacare.”
After the Senate’s Health and Finance committees drafted versions of the Affordable Care Act, Reid did combine them in private before bringing them to the floor. But the idea that the law wasn’t written in the public eye is ridiculous. Both the committee processes were endless and, with the exception of Max Baucus’s sojourn into the “Gang of Six” process, quite open, and Reid’s effort to combine the bills mostly preserved the committees’ work. After the law came to the floor, there was both a long period of public debate and an extremely open amendment process — you can read the many, many amendments that got voted on here. As someone who had to cover that process and thus spent almost six solid months watching C-SPAN, I’ve little patience for those who suggest it was all conducted behind closed doors.
I want to be clear: Most every charge of hypocrisy that can be leveled at McConnell can also be leveled at Reid. And McConnell does have legitimate complaints, particularly when it comes to the ability to offer amendments. But the filibuster was not designed by the founding fathers, it has not been sacrosanct throughout the long history of the Senate, and its use today is not in any way comparable to its use 50 years ago. The biggest problem with McConnell’s statements wasn’t what he said so much as what he left out; namely, this graph, which shows the way the filibuster has gone from a rarely invoked minority protection to a constantly wielded supermajority requirement...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In my view, that means they wouldn’t do much to fix the Senate at all.
The difference is that in order to kill a bill, the minority party would have to be on record as voting against it. That is huge for things like the "jobs" bill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, they actually are forced to DISCUSS the bill, and if you want to filibuster, you can't just do it procedurally by having one person stand up, say "nope!" and shut down all discussion on the bill whatsoever.
it's big. it hits at one of the two cores of republican obstructionism in a big way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lets hope the Democrats are even half as partisan as the GOP claims they are and this change goes through.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lookatit
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, it's a completely broken rule. If this was a game, there'd have been a hotfix years ago.
I hope the media and Americans in general get behind this hard. It's not going to fix the deficit directly, but it's necessary if Congress is going to function again. We're going to need to make some tough choices, if every single one requires a 60 vote super majority in the Senate, then not enough can pass.
Neither both parties control one house, it's a good time to put this dog down.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am curious how many Americans actually know the filibuster rule. Obviously this group is informed but when you think filibuster, don't most people think telephone book reading and jimmy Stewart and all that? I am just not sure people know the actual rules and that the current rules are an issue. This board seems more informed than average to me but I have birthers as coworkers so that seems a bit uh, les informed than average so I don't know what normal is.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I don't know about the average American but the vast majority of people I spend time around have no idea and probably would not even recognize the word.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
most people aren't aware that the republicans have turned the filibuster into a procedural motion, where a single person simply announces intent to filibuster and this ends not only an up or down vote (pending cloture) but ends debate over any bill.
Most people also don't recognize the impact of gerrymandering or why it's why we have so many districts packed (increasing extremism and honestly bad candidates) and this is why republicans, despite losing the national house vote, have tons more seats than democrats.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:most people aren't aware that the republicans have turned the filibuster into a procedural motion, where a single person simply announces intent to filibuster and this ends not only an up or down vote (pending cloture) but ends debate over any bill.
Did the Republicans do that? That doesn't sound right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on how you look at it but not really. Several rule changes happened to create this situation. One was the two-track system which was created by a mostly Democratic Senate during/just after the civil rights fights which were holding up everything else. Before, a filibuster would stop debate on everything. Now, other bills can be debated while a bill is being filibustered.
That Republicans have recently been the most likely to abuse this rule seems pretty clear to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:The reality should be seeping in to viewers of the Sunday shows that the Republicans don’t have a game plan. They don’t have a single, specific proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff. And even if they had one, they don’t have a roadmap to get there. They keep expecting Obama to come back with something more to their liking, which they’d also reject. Many Republicans literally don’t understand what is happening. Sen. Charles Grassley tweeted over the weekend that he was frustrated that President Obama hadn’t embraced the recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Apparently, he is one of the many people in Washington who doesn’t understand that Bowles-Simpson recommended letting the Bush tax rates on the wealthy expire, while also proposing to cap or eliminate deductions primarily enjoyed by the wealthy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In fairness, there are just as many articles wondering why Obama has more than doubled his demands. The GOP seems willing now to embrace $800 billion in increased taxes, something that was anathema only a few weeks ago. They're even willing to accept more, but only if real entitlement reform is a part of it, exactly as Simpson Bowles demanded.
They'll do tax increases, but only tied to entitlement reform that reduces spending.
I can't blame them for wanting to tie the two together.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree that that's what they want. But Obama has not put any cuts on the table himself. Instead he has allowed the Republicans to explicitly lay out what cuts they want to see happen. They will have to deal with the repercussions as those requests become public, instead of letting Obama start from the middle, while they block him and then say he refuses to accept their ideas. The GOP hasn't announced a plan they can all support, Obama and the Democrats have.
I'm happy to let the Republicans learn to pro-actively govern again, even if that means they have to play a dangerous game of advocating for cuts without angering too many people. If they want my vote, they better stop spending all their time thinking they represent big business, and start protecting things that matter to me.
Personally, I think Ralph Nader was onto something when he proposed a small tax on stock trading. That along with cuts to defense, letting Medicard/Medicade negotiate their own rates with hospitals, increasing the tax cap on Social Security, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making $250K+ a year, extending the payroll tax cut, and creating a decent healthcare exchange for all 50 states that requires each citizen to finance in part their care (Contributing $1500 USD for having a baby for example) are all things I want done in the next four years.
Also, build some freaking high speed rail from Los Angeles to Boston to Miami.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I agree that that's what they want. But Obama has not put any cuts on the table himself. Instead he has allowed the Republicans to explicitly lay out what cuts they want to see happen. They will have to deal with the repercussions as those requests become public, instead of letting Obama start from the middle, while they block him and then say he refuses to accept their ideas. The GOP hasn't announced a plan they can all support, Obama and the Democrats have.
I take it this is partially from Krugman:
quote:The GOP's Big Budget Mumble
In the ongoing battle of the budget, President Obama has done something very cruel. Declaring that this time he won’t negotiate with himself, he has refused to lay out a proposal reflecting what he thinks Republicans want. Instead, he has demanded that Republicans themselves say, explicitly, what they want. And guess what: They can’t or won’t do it.
No, really. While there has been a lot of bluster from the G.O.P. about how we should reduce the deficit with spending cuts, not tax increases, no leading figures on the Republican side have been able or willing to specify what, exactly, they want to cut.
And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.
Here’s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion, through such measures as giving Medicare the ability to bargain for lower drug prices.
Republicans have howled in outrage. Senator Orrin Hatch, delivering the G.O.P. reply to the president’s weekly address, denounced the offer as a case of “bait and switch,” bearing no relationship to what Mr. Obama ran on in the election. In fact, however, the offer is more or less the same as Mr. Obama’s original 2013 budget proposal and also closely tracks his campaign literature.
So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that’s a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.
quote:The point is that when you put Republicans on the spot and demand specifics about how they’re going to make good on their posturing about spending and deficits, they come up empty. There’s no there there.
And there never was. Republicans claim to be for much smaller government, but as a political matter they have always attacked government spending in the abstract, never coming clean with voters about the reality that big cuts in government spending can happen only if we sharply curtail very popular programs. In fact, less than a month ago the Romney/Ryan campaign was attacking Mr. Obama for, yes, cutting Medicare.
Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can’t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.
So while the fiscal cliff — still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we’re stuck with it — is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P.’s political strategy.
whee!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: And there’s a reason for this reticence. The fact is that Republican posturing on the deficit has always been a con game, a play on the innumeracy of voters and reporters. Now Mr. Obama has demanded that the G.O.P. put up or shut up — and the response is an aggrieved mumble.
I do really wonder at how people don't know this now. Like, how it doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted fact? Or is it? I don't know, I don't get to the states that often.
Although, I have to say I do relish the impending claims that Obama is holding the economy hostage by refusing to propose solutions to the fiscal cliff. That will induce a laugh and urge to vomit in rage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Krugman (yet again) on three card budget monte
quote:It goes without saying that the Republican “counteroffer” is basically fake. It calls for $800 billion in revenue from closing loopholes, but doesn’t specify a single loophole to be closed; it calls for huge spending cuts, but aside from raising the Medicare age and cutting the Social Security inflation adjustment — moves worth only around $300 billion — it doesn’t specify how these cuts are to be achieved. So it’s basically the Paul Ryan method: scribble down some numbers and pretend that you’re a budget wonk with a Serious plan.
quote:Oh, and for all the seniors or near-seniors who voted Republican because you thought they would protect Medicare from that bad guy Obama: you’ve been had.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well what's your analysis? Is the Republican's Great Wall of Denial fatally compromised at this stage? Has the election broken the back of the central strategy they employed against Obama to get to this impass? Because now, no budget proposal will get out of the house unless the Reublicans vote for it in significant numbers. Their majority there is a liability now in that regard. And if they don't, they're more than royally screwed, because they were the ones that forced us to this cliff, nd they have no way of denying that. The enormous gamble they made to get Obama gone now comes due for payment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
None of this matters until we actually go over the Cliff, if we do in fact go over the Cliff.
All that matters is who gets tagged for the blame when we hit the bottom. Polls suggest it will be Congressional Republicans. But all of this is just posturing up to the last minute. Most people have no idea what Krugman is talking about, they see all these numbers being tossed around for tax increases and spending cuts and think these are fully fleshed out ideas, having no clue that both sides are just tossing BS numbers at each other without doing the actual work.
The GOP will assume they can work the media, as they always have, and come out smelling like roses. And it's entirely possible they will. It's all about who you blame when nothing gets done. That's how government has worked for the last three years. If nothing gets done, we'll see who gets blamed and how they react, but that's a good month away from now. This is all just talk.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I do really wonder at how people don't know this now. Like, how it doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted fact? Or is it? I don't know, I don't get to the states that often.
I think an awful lot of people sincerely believe that government spending is a massive problem and needs to be curtailed. They see Republicans as trying to rein in a reckless and wasteful government that has grown out of control.
Whether or not any of that is true, a lot of people believe it. So no, I wouldn't call it a commonly accepted fact that Republicans are playing a con game.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ok. It's just sort of amazing. Sort of really amazing. It makes me wonder at what in hell Mitt Romney would have done if he'd been elected. And I do realize, part of his not getting elected was that a lot of people kind of got that he talked about reigning in spending, but also never really got an earful of how he planned to do it. Whether they realized that this was because he didn't actually plan to do it, or because they thought he didn't know, I did get the sense that people were on to the scam.
But at this late stage, I remain a little flabbergasted at people still not getting it. I know some actual conservatives who get it. They're in a tough position, because they don't really have anyone to vote for anymore.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Looks like going over the fiscal cliff might be better idea than the GOP counter proposals.
I'm also crossing my fingers for Obama to just mint a 1 trillion$ coin for the next debt ceiling talks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is the mint allowed to create any denomination they want without Congressional approval?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yup. They can make a coin of any denomination, Krugman suggested it. Obama can also invoke the 14th.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this week's republican folly includes a big old slap to the face of an aging bob dole and makes it really hard to think kindly in any terms of movement and tea party republicans
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.
The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him. President Obama has championed the idea.
McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected.
“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”
wow
Posted by Eloyambres (Member # 12924) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Gold plated spam.)
[ December 19, 2012, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eloyambres: (Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Gold plated spam.)
I'm waiting for platinum-plated spam, if you don't mind. It'll be on sale after the holidays.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hi thread, aside from the wired article that got to the root of how romney's 'business acumen' was utterly worthless in the election and as a supposed demonstration of his leadership capacity, i have really not seen, heard, or thought much of romney at all
funny how fast that went
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hi thread, aside from the wired article that got to the root of how romney's 'business acumen' was utterly worthless in the election and as a supposed demonstration of his leadership capacity, i have really not seen, heard, or thought much of romney at all
funny how fast that went
I remember seeing an article saying he was retiring from politics and was taking a position on the Board for one of the major hotels. Don't recall which.
It's funny though how he's just kinda faded out of the public eye for the most part. It seems like most people who run for President and lose either stick around in politics or go on to do something which keeps them in the public arena. He seems to be just taking a sabbatical from it all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think he needed to get out of it to get over it. It's finally over. He won't be nominated in 2016, he had two chances and missed both times. After the pace of a campaign, simply going home probably isn't much of an option, although joining a Board isn't exactly a ton of work.
But I suspect he's basically in a state of mourning.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: It seems like most people who run for President and lose either stick around in politics or go on to do something which keeps them in the public arena.
That's not how it seems from my perspective at all. It might be interesting to see what the last 5 failed presidential bid candidates did for the 1-2 years post-election.
Go for it. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I am probably thinking more long term (as in beyond the 1-2 years after running mark) than in the immediate years after the presidency. But John McCain, John Kerry, and Al Gore are still in the public eye.
My observation may also be biased because those are the only elections during which I had much awareness of the elections (due to my age).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
McCain and Kerry were/are both senators, which necessitates them remaining in the public eye somewhat. Not exactly a fair comparison.
Al Gore largely disappeared for at least a couple years, too, before showing up to criticize Bush and then take up the environmentalist cause.
And, yeah, that also ain't very far back. What about Dole? H W Bush? Dukakis? Mondale? Most of them didn't remain in the public eye significantly, especially not for the period immediately following the election.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I thought McCain was too old back when he was the Republican nominee for president. I figured though that he was vastly superior to the grossly unqualified and incompetent Democrat alternative, and I would be especially glad to have Sarah Palin be in line to be the Vice President and heir apparent. John Kerry (who got a purple heart for shagging himself, and who told the most egregious lies, many of them scripted by Ted Kennedy) is absolutely unfit to be anywhere outside of prison, let alone in any elective office. The entire Commonwealth of Massacusetts should be committed. And even though I voted for Al Gore, I have since come to be apalled at what a true extremist nut he is about agw, and after the quality leadership Bush Jr. demonstrated, I was glad he won.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're really not going to like the next Secretary of State, then...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Al Gore largely disappeared for at least a couple years, too, before showing up to criticize Bush and then take up the environmentalist cause.
And, yeah, that also ain't very far back. What about Dole? H W Bush? Dukakis? Mondale? Most of them didn't remain in the public eye significantly, especially not for the period immediately following the election.
Yeah, those include some of the ones I was thinking of too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You all must be too young to remember Nixon...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:John Kerry (who got a purple heart for shagging himself, and who told the most egregious lies
apropos that this is the most unintentionally hilarious thing you have said this year.
i'll see if you can figure out why
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
If only we could all get Purple Hearts for shagging ourselves... Ah well.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.
Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
He threw a hand grenade into a bin of grain, turned his back, and got shrapnel in the butt. Later he claimed he had been wounded in battle, which was a bald-faced lie. But the worst thing he did was completely misrepresent the character of the American soldiers. Remember, even at My Lai, the crew of a helicopter gunship stopped the atrocities by threatening to open fire on the squad of soldiers committing the atrocities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To ignore for the time being your usual baseless flights of fancy (BTW, President Obama won the election) I am not sure the "shagging" is the word you are looking for.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.
Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
I was unsure from where this original quote came from. Was he quoting himself from earlier on in this thread?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, I understand that you disagree with John Kerry's politics, and dislike his beliefs, but must you continue blackening his time spent risking his life in defense of this country. Your description of getting a wound in his backside from a grenade he himself threw doesn't even agree with what the Swift Boat people were paid to say 12 years ago.
His wound was in his arm--just below the elbow--but that isn't disgusting enough for your little rant so you make it a butt wound.
It was his first of three Purple Hearts. Do you claim that all of them, and all the witnesses who say he deserved each one are all wrong?
I could go on with the errors in your post, but I am not trying to slap you down on your opinion of Senator Kerry. You think he's a problem--fine. But he was a man who served his country. Respect the uniform.
Attack his voting. Attack his stance on issues. Attack his hair. But don't attack a veteran who ever fought to defend their country for defending their country.
The only people who attacked Senator McCain for his service were idiots. That goes for anyone who attacks veterans in an attempt to steal the luster of their honor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:failed presidential candidates typically have important roles, either as activists or senior statesmen, and stay fairly prominent in the public eye either as congressmen or as dignitaries in some regard, or even engage in activist celebrity like gore. even mondale stood up again and got back in the game. but when romney loses, how big are the odds he's not just going to vanish. just like that OK done bye poof i'll go sit on the board at bain capital again or something and be a generic executive. all those other candidates had something of substance from which derives the passion for activism, driven them back into the public eye to do something of substance. do you see anything in romney that would see him doing something remotely like 'an inconvenient truth,' anything he can throw his passion behind? i don't, and it's not like i'm not looking. he's run an empty election. he doesn't seem to stand for anything except himself. he tries to assert otherwise but it all seems so hollow. his only activist cause is himself. maybe at best he'll be trading favors to stump for ryan in some way which bypasses the immense disdain that all his fairweather establishment friends will have for him after the dust settles and they all get to figure out you can't win on a romney/ryan platform because this isn't the gilded age anymore and them uppity poor get all up in your face if you try to institute policies by and for the benefit of old white robber barons, how inconvenient.
Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
I was unsure from where this original quote came from. Was he quoting himself from earlier on in this thread?
I assumed it was a post from somewhere else. I don't think it's from here.
Darth: I laughed hard at "attack his hair," and I agree with your general point. There's plenty about Kerry to attack, no need to make stuff up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Thanks for this glimpse into an unsettlingly ignorant/self-righteous worldview. What a terrible combination. Yikes!
I'm glad we all just apparently have the 47% "gifts" Etch-A-Sketch candidate wrong. Surely he will shock us all by not just immediately going back into corporate level business ~
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Ron, I understand that you disagree with John Kerry's politics, and dislike his beliefs, but must you continue blackening his time spent risking his life in defense of this country. Your description of getting a wound in his backside from a grenade he himself threw doesn't even agree with what the Swift Boat people were paid to say 12 years ago.
His wound was in his arm--just below the elbow--but that isn't disgusting enough for your little rant so you make it a butt wound.
Barack nate buttwound
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth, what the Swiftboaters said orginally was the truth. Democrats and other unprincipled supporters of John Kerry used the liberals' time-honored tactic of attempting to discredit testimony that otherwise would sink them by getting a few ringers to claim to be Swiftboaters too, and make claims that could be easily disproven. They are the ones who were paid for their testimony. Communist (Soviet) agents--people who later were proven to be foreign communist agents--stood up in meetings of the antiwar crowd and claimed to be American soldiers and falsely confessed to all kinds of atrocities in Vietnam. Often the soldiers whose names were used found out about it and objected. But the Jane Fonda crowd never would admit that they had been so easily misled.
John Kerry read to Congress a statement prepared for him by Ted Kennedy that depicted American soldiers on the main as being despicable and criminal. In fact, not a word of that testimony was true. It was all propaganda designed to score points for the antiwar faction in Congress. So if you want to talk about someone blackening the name of the American soldier, that is what I have against John Kerry. And that was my generation who served in Vietnam, some of them people I went to college with. Besides being a liar about his wounds, he was actually the one who provided the writeups that were used as the basis for awarding the purple hearts and bronze star. I consider showing any respect to John Kerry as being unAmerican, and does a gross disservice to the vast majority of American soldiers who served during the Vietnam era. The man does truly deserve to be in Leavenworth.
[ December 21, 2012, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
[Citation Needed]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just going to spoil the ending for you: Ron is not well in the head. His intentional-butt-wound-totally-facts statement is about as credible as his statement that we totally see barack obama's grandmother saying barack was born in an african village, but much like with that non-controversy, Ron will defend it to the death, barring few exceptions. Credibility of the source is irrelevant if he wants to believe it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: "Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault."
At one point, Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"
Replied Obama: "You get nothing. I get that for free."
YES! PLEASE lets go over the cliff, the GOP loses all of their ability to obstruct if that happens.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obama thinks he won a mandate in the election, and ignores that fact that he had no effective "coattails," and Republicans still retained control of Congress. With Obama's insanely inflated ego, nothing but force will prevent him from pushing the country over the fiscal cliff. And if it does happen, it will be Obama's fault. Only a total spendthrift fool would think you can solve a budget problem by NOT cutting spending. What is he and his fellow fools on the political Left going to do when China refuses to buy any more of our treasury notes?
Samprimary, I think it is worth pointing out that you and others who criticize me have never refuted any of my arguments, you only resort to ridicule and slander. You would probably swell up and die if you even tried to refute any of my arguments without resorting to insult and character assassination. This is one of the ways you confirm to me that you are on the side of wrong, and your arguments can be ignored by any honorable and honest person. "By their fruits ye shall know them...." and your fruit is all poison.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Funny how you still operate on the illusion that household economics somehow apply to nation-states. "spendthrifts" is entirely nonsensical, the entire world operates on debt as a driver of the economy, every country with austerity measures has seen growth slow down.
Cutting spending will contract the economy, the government is a needed tool in this, without aggregate demand to drive growth companies have no incentive to hire more workers.
How does Obama have an ego? Have you met the man? Have you spoken with him? What is it?
Also how will it be Obama's fault? They had an offer that included both but it was rejected, why is it Obama's fault when it is mostly Republican congressmen who signed a silly pledge to never raise taxes ever?
Also American debt sustainability has little to do with China, but entirely to do with the US Dollar being the world's reserve currency due to the Bretton-Wood's agreement.
If you were to claim that the IRA were not terrorists (like one Republican has claimed) and no one decided to go to the effort to line by line refuse that statement, does it make it true?
Everything you say is self evidently false.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, are we back to the character argument, then? I get to have Ron telling rational people that we have no honor or reason, and thus we can all be ignored for the scum we are? Ok, counterfire ahoy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I think it is worth pointing out that you and others who criticize me have never refuted any of my arguments, you only resort to ridicule and slander.
You are ably and amply refuted. Constantly. People explained to you with wasted patience about where you were wrong in subjects like your "video proof" of barack's birthplace, in our supposed discovery of enriched processed uranium in Iraq, basic biological processes related to your assertions about creationism. We don't have to engage in character assassination; your character is dead by a grotesque suicide.
You say "By ye fruits you shall be known" and the fruits you have given us are nonsensical, illogical, irrational distortion of facts that you cling to with an ungodly possessiveness. When you are proven to be wrong (as you pretty much always are), you ignore the lesson and carry forth with incensed abandon. When you are cornered on the facts, you begin to use your ~compassionate~ scripture as a cudgel, using it to say that we are all beneath you. If you act in any way as a representative of your faith, you use it as a baldly emotional defense of your own ego and God the only proof of your personal superiority against the rest of the "poison fruits."
Fortunately I know enough about your faith to know that it is not as terrible as you make it seem, nor is God as vindictive, bitter, and unworthy of worship as you make Him out to be — a saliently egotistic jerk who would let meteors rain on innocents everywhere just because gay marriage got legalized, or something. You're just a bad christian imprinting your own callous, neurotic ego on God.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh and another point for Ron, the Americans by majority vote actually voted for Democrats in the House of Reps, but the GOP only won through their gerrymandering. How does Obama not have a mandate? The popular vote was won by Dems in House, Senate and the White House.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
its not a mandate because liberals
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just going to spoil the ending for you: Ron is not well in the head. His intentional-butt-wound-totally-facts statement is about as credible as his statement that we totally see barack obama's grandmother saying barack was born in an african village, but much like with that non-controversy, Ron will defend it to the death, barring few exceptions. Credibility of the source is irrelevant if he wants to believe it.
Samprimary: Please refrain from calling Ron mentally ill, or anything along those lines.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't understand what appears to be a striking double standard (and I do mean 'appears to be'-I believe there is a reason I'm unaware of). Ron just told at least one flat-out lie (his arguments haven't been refuted), and then to compound the transgression suggested people who have pointed out he is lying-and that is a question of fact, not opinion-are dishonorable poisonous people.
It's not a rare thing, either. Ron routinely lies about 'never having been refuted', and then when people offer solid evidence that yes, in fact, he has ignores that and then insults them in vicious personal terms, as just now in this thread.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think there's a pretty important difference between disagreeing with someone (even when doing so in a rude way, as Ron has done) and calling them insane.
We all disagree, and many of us can get pretty damn rude. But accusing someone of mental illness takes that a step beyond, I think.
(I whistled Sam's post, too, in case that wasn't clear. And I dunno if anyone whistled Ron. So the double standard may be as simple as that?)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I will countenance people arguing that a poster is being disingenuous. I won't countenance calling somebody mentally ill as a pejorative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So telling bald-faced, open lies about someone repeatedly...that is 'countenanced'. I'm not sure *why*, but it is...that is, to form an offensive insult with provably no basis in reality, and do so over and over and over again.
To form an offensive insult that may or may not be true, but cannot be known...that does draw swift response from at least two people.
So now I understand the rules of this policy, but it makes no sense. Ron might as well have said of Samprimary 'you have said you hate America', it would be just as much a lie, and if Samprimary were to rebut that Ron was nuts...the obvious lie wouldn't get a whistle, the rebuttal would?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, it should be said: Ron didn't just disagree with Sam in a rude way, or even 'suggest he was being disingenuous'. He told a flat-out lie (no one has refuted), and then not only attacked but attacked in viscous personal terms on the basis of the lie.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't think that any amount of lying justifies an attack like calling someone insane.
As far as the attacking in vicious personal terms... I don't quite see that, but maybe I missed it? I read Ron's most recent post, but not any of his preceding ones, because... well, it's not usually worth it to read Ron's posts.
(See, that was sort of obliquely insulting, but I didn't outright call Ron anything, so I think there's a substantive difference.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: You are misunderstanding. If you feel a poster is being dishonest, I am comfortable with you saying so.
If you say a poster is insane, so they do not need to be taken at face value, I am not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can you say a poster is deeply and wholly irrational to the extent that they should not be argued with, especially considering that if you do, your contradictions of their position, no matter how valid, will be met with complete dismissal both of your mental ability but also your moral and spiritual righteousness, with an increasing probability that he will implicate you as being an enemy of God?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh: You are misunderstanding. If you feel a poster is being dishonest, I am comfortable with you saying so.
If you say a poster is insane, so they do not need to be taken at face value, I am not.
It seems like this skips over the part where he tells a proven lie, and then makes personal attacks on that lie.
------
Dan,
Alright, *how many* times do I get to claim only a dishonorable, dishonest fool would disagree with what I am saying...addressed to you....in response to your disagreeing with me about something...before I finally, finally stop getting to hide behind the claim 'well I didn't *directly* attack you, Dan...'
I'm just trying to establish an upper limit, and hopefully the counter won't start when it's established.
Oh! How about this: Ron, only someone deranged would make the sorts of arguments you're making, and tell the sort of lies you're telling. But I suspect the line is drawn for that, too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think that any amount of lying justifies an attack like calling someone insane.
As far as the attacking in vicious personal terms... I don't quite see that, but maybe I missed it? I read Ron's most recent post, but not any of his preceding ones, because... well, it's not usually worth it to read Ron's posts.
If you don't read Ron's posts, you should probably recuse yourself from doubting why someone who does read his posts says the things they do about him. You are speaking to a situation you are intentionally remaining ignorant of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In fact you have actually done this before and Destineer chimed in and tried to fill you in on the backstory of what you were missing because you intentionally don't follow what Ron is or really what he does.
edit: rakeesh don't forget the time ron told you that you should die for your affront against him and god (also known as 'correcting him')
or this brilliant bit we see over and over again
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
this is what happens when someone points out to ron that he is literally arguing against the source he himself has provided
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In fact you have actually done this before and Destineer chimed in and tried to fill you in on the backstory of what you were missing because you intentionally don't follow what Ron is or really what he does.
edit: rakeesh don't forget the time ron told you that you should die for your affront against him and god (also known as 'correcting him')
or this brilliant bit we see over and over again
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Speaking of discerning political reality, I find it interesting that just_me thinks that the 550 metric tons of enriched uranium that was in Iraq before the Coalition forces invaded, was somehow already "under our control."
But that is just the kind of intellectual integrity one can expect from the kind of minds that ignore the vastly superior weight of evidence in favor of Creation and the conclusive Biblcal evidence that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and does matter. I will be willing to die for what I believe, if it comes to it, because I know this is what is Truth and Right and Good, and I am absolutely sure. And if some of you intolerant pseudo-intellectuals keep on in your present course, you will be the ones who will one day wind up trying to murder me for not submitting to your worldview. But God is the Judge, and He will have the last word.
this is what happens when someone points out to ron that he is literally arguing against the source he himself has provided
Just one clarification: Back then, if I remember right, I was saying Ron was less bad than other posters. I was wrong.
And I'm not specifically saying that, here. I didn't whistle your post because I think you're worse than Ron in any general sense.
I just thought the specific thing I whistled was worth whistling. I thought it was the kind of post I didn't think was appropriate. And I checked the one Ron post preceding it to see if I should whistle anything there, for parity, and didn't see anything. So I didn't.
But frankly, if you think Ron's other posts (that I admittedly didn't read) are equal to calling him insane, then you should probably whistle those posts. That would be my advice, anyway.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The list of people who have called Ron crazy is upwards of 25 our so posters that I have seen at least. And they called him that usually without malice. And they did so because the posts they were reading were just ... You could not come to another conclusion. Is there any particular reason why now it has to become an unsaid elephant in the room every time ron degenerates into delusional political and spiritual conspiracy-babble and states repeatedly how terrible and stupid and worthless people who disagree with his latest chain email conspiracy theory is?
I mean i sort of wonder specifically because whether you want to call it mental illness or just focus on the behavioral aspect of it (crazy posts espousing clear and evident delusion) Ron is not in a good place and shouldn't be posting, much like how Malanthrope needed to not be posting, for a different root issue.
Like hey. Ron's behavior will remain consistent whether our not it gets to be called what it is. Maybe something should be done about that rather than spades being called spades.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I just thought the specific thing I whistled was worth whistling. I thought it was the kind of post I didn't think was appropriate. And I checked the one Ron post preceding it to see if I should whistle anything there, for parity, and didn't see anything. So I didn't.
Well, good thing you were there to completely gloss over the multiple lies and direct personal attacks, Dan. Thankfully the problem with Ron-people calling him crazy-was acted upon, and he can resume his regular course of posting free of lies and personal attacks so bizarre and provably false that they foster questions of derangement.
Here, I'll adopt a Ron style tone that 'doesn't have direct attacks'. Some people, possibly out of a hatred for the truth and a love of weird bullying, are so weak and despise America so much that when they see it, defend the lying attacker against attacks, out of a misguided liberal sense of not playing 'fair'. Thankfully no matter how bad this country gets, I will never do so, and one day the good, honorable people in this country who don't hate the truth will rise up and cast out those who do.
Man, I hadn't realized the bar for slipping in direct personal attacks here was so low. Or...is it only low for people whose posting is so offensive and detached from reality that they get...more leeway...hrm.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I kinda like having walking proof in front of me that I am not the crazy one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Proof that people agree with you is not proof that you aren't actually crazy. Just that you're right in this particular case. I still think you're crazy , but in a totally non-Ron type of way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which is superior to all forms of crazy that have been tried before!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Certainly it is the Cadillac of crazy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here, I'll adopt a Ron style tone that 'doesn't have direct attacks'. Some people, possibly out of a hatred for the truth and a love of weird bullying, are so weak and despise America so much that when they see it, defend the lying attacker against attacks, out of a misguided liberal sense of not playing 'fair'. Thankfully no matter how bad this country gets, I will never do so, and one day the good, honorable people in this country who don't hate the truth will rise up and cast out those who do.
You are forgetting the spontaneous break into the quotation of scripture and the growing assertion that those who have contradicted you are genuinely wicked, driven to insanity by their demonic influences, and will be judged by God.
/ here is my favorite example towards me so far
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, you may not know now what passions you will allow to control you in the future, but if you follow a certain course now, the future is quite predictable. Cain killed Abel because Abel obeyed God, and God made manifest His acceptance of Abel. This Cain resented, and took out his rebellion against God by murdering his faithful brother. In the end, all conflict between Good and Evil will come down to the same thing. The powers of evil will encite all mankind to the point where the majority will feel they must kill the dissenting minority. No one will be neutral. See Rev. 9:15, 18; 13:5.
This is why Hatrack rocks. Even the death threats are unique.
[ December 23, 2012, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I presume since Ron is against spending that he will be perfectly fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire and significant reductions in military spending.
...Hahahahaha who am I kidding?
Anyways, Lyrhawn, odds on the US going over the cliff? At this point I seriously believe its superior than any GOP wishlist that's likely on the table.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As things stand right now? 99.9%
If Boehner can't even get his Plan B passed, then passing the Grand Bargain is a pipe dream. Democrats are fine with letting taxes bump and then on Jan. 1 passing a law that enacts a tax break, it makes them look like heroes. And they can bargain with adding military spending back, rather than cutting it. Obama was already giving Boehner way more than House Dems were willing to go along with. If Boehner can't bring his side along, it means we either go over the cliff and Dems call the shots, or they pass some stopgap measure, but I'm not sure how much support a stopgap has.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not sure if its the echo chamber effect from hanging around SA but I'm worried that Obama is significantly interested in getting a grand bargain that he'll give virtually anything just to get 'agreement' in of itself regardless of the gains or whether they are worse than the effects of the cliff.
But I see some pushback, so there's hope.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's given in on more than a lot of people on the left would like him too, but nothing that's seriously bothered me yet. I actually liked the chained CPI change to social security, though liberals are screaming bloody murder about it. It was in the Simpson-Bowles plan, and Simpson has railed about it to anyone who will listen. Made sense to me.
In exchange, he's asking for literally twice what he wanted before in revenue increases, so he's already moved the goal post significantly. He's not exactly giving away the store, especially not when he has Boehner saying that 1:1 revenue:spending cuts is a fair deal. The debate has shifted so far that we've already forgotten where we were six to twelve months ago.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The problem with chain CPI though is that if you actually DID adjust social security benefits to *actual* inflation they would be 70% higher right now (and likewise would see that the economy hasn't actually grown at all but been in about a consistent 1% recession since the last 12 years or so) and chained CPI I think lowers it even more.
*Edit* Although the political benefit of chain cpi is that you can easily revoke it afterwards, less so for a bunch of other things. I think handing back the debt ceiling controls to the Presidency should've been the number 1 demand however.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The president overreached! He spent an entire year campaigning on letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich, and then, after winning a convincing victory in November he insisted on....letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich. In GOP-land, that constitutes "poisoning the well," and it will now become the official excuse for another four years of bitter obstruction and spittle-flecked conspiracy theories. The whole process took less than two months from start to finish. Happy New Year, everyone.
The public overwhelmingly sides with the president on the fiscal cliff thing and will blame conservatives if we go over. If we go over it will be over a chorus of boos and then the president will probably simply offer bills reversing the effect on the middle class which he will get through and then sign. Thus helping wake people up to the fact that it is the conservatives who want to raise your taxes but only so long as you're one of the dirty poors.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I love the tea party now. I love them. They're completely unmanageable and unredeemable and they're dragging the whole party down with their fiscal insanity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: here's some Mother Jones, because screw conservatives, they deserve it now.
quote:The president overreached! He spent an entire year campaigning on letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich, and then, after winning a convincing victory in November he insisted on....letting tax rates go up modestly on the rich. In GOP-land, that constitutes "poisoning the well," and it will now become the official excuse for another four years of bitter obstruction and spittle-flecked conspiracy theories. The whole process took less than two months from start to finish. Happy New Year, everyone.
The public overwhelmingly sides with the president on the fiscal cliff thing and will blame conservatives if we go over. If we go over it will be over a chorus of boos and then the president will probably simply offer bills reversing the effect on the middle class which he will get through and then sign. Thus helping wake people up to the fact that it is the conservatives who want to raise your taxes but only so long as you're one of the dirty poors.
Well, they put themselves here gambling that they could somehow magically govern if they had a Republican in the White House (8 years of failing to responsibly govern notwithstanding). Now they are facing the choice of raising taxes, or having taxes raised, and then watching democrats take credit for lowering them again. And it is their fault. Their stupid fault.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would like to see the parties splinter and a new one rise up. Not the Tea Party, although I have no doubt they'll remain.
I want to see the "Govern, Dammit" party.
A party dedicated to actually achieving manageable goals, to working with other people, to paying more attention to the needs of the country than to getting themselves re-elected or setting up a nice lobbying job for themselves later. I want politicians proud of what they've accomplished together, rather than proud of what they've kept the other side from doing.
Some objectives toward that end: filibuster reform, gerrymandering reform, mandatory up or down votes on judicial nominees, reformation of the legislative process so that riders cannot be added to unrelated bills and changes cannot be made without oversight and complete accountability.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
BTW, still waiting to hear Ron say the words, "I was wrong." He predicted a landslide win for Romney. The closest he's come is to blame the media, stupid voters and Superstorm Sandy, even though Nate Silver (and others) accurately predicted Obama's win some time back.
I'd like to hear, just once, of all the times Ron's predictions have been completely off and yes, his arguments refuted, the simple, unqualified words, "I was wrong."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Dude, I get that you're mostly just enjoying the thrill of sarcastically mocking someone, but this is so off from what happened.
"Ron, you constantly make factually wrong predictions and then evade the truth. You're not discussing anything in good faith, you're being intellectually dishonest, and you're not worth talking to."
I have no problem with any of that. It's when you then go further and say "Also, you're damaged in the head and should seek psychiatric help," that I object.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You object to people who appear to be mentally ill seeking help? That's odd.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan, that dynamic has happened at least a half-dozen times here on Hatrack. Chris knows it, BlackBlade knows it, I know it, hell at times Ron won't even deny parts of it.
Your standard of what is problematic is frankly absurd and, without intending to be ironic, disconnected from any consistent standard I can think of. Call someone a liar, lazy, and even an awful person-things Ron does routinely in political discussion-and warrant no discipline, but heaven help you if you assert illness, that-THAT-is beyond the pale.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He doesn't have to admit that, and remember: when he calls you an American-hating liar and traitor for pointing out his numerous factually, hugely wrong predictions, don't wonder aloud at the dubious rationality of his politics. Because that's beyond the pale.
Dude, I get that you're mostly just enjoying the thrill of sarcastically mocking someone, but this is so off from what happened.
you really don't read his posts, do you.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Ron -
In today's increasingly secular world, the voices of people following God's will are drowned out, more and more.
Thank you for standing strong for God, and not being ashamed of following His directives. Thank you for making sure that God's voice remains at the table.
[ December 28, 2012, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Shigs ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Honestly, I don't believe he's being drowned out. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people on this forum are theists of one type or another.
Ron is being asked to acknowledge when he's provably wrong, which he won't do, and to back up statements with something besides his interpretation of scripture.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:New York magazine has a fascinating piece on the National Review magazine's Post Election Cruise 2012 in which roughly 600 Republicans took a vacation and tried to figure out what went wrong at the voting booths.
"This was a phenomenon that was common on the cruise--the conservative pundits and columnists from the National Review attempting to gently disinter their followers from unhelpful conservative propaganda. For people who believe in the truth of works like Dreams From My Real Father, a conspiracy-theory documentary that argues that Obama's real father was a communist propagandist who turned Obama into a socialist Manchurian Candidate, this could be difficult work."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its going to be up to the Tea Party to save us from ourselves now through their crass idiocy.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
e: Wait wait wait, I am not answering that question until I know one thing.
Who are you and whose alt are you because a new poster shouldn't know the fact that I'm Canadian without extensive lurking, and an extensive lurker wouldn't poke his head out just to be a god awful troll.
[ December 31, 2012, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
I was just curious, is all. You seem to use the words "we" and "us" an awful lot when describing the politics of a nation that isn't your home.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
And to answer your question, my screen name is Shigs, and it always has been. I've already been through this with the peanut gallery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Gotta give points to the lad for recognizing the reality of the situation.
Funny that Shigs knew Blayne was Canadian...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My point though still stands, the US sneezes everyone else jumps.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
I know what you mean, I always skip over news stories about Canada too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Always has been, since Shigs registered in July and began posting half a year later to offer invalid (due to having failed to read) a thread about a poster's long-standing illness. Spoken, by the way, with none of the usual courteous caution one might expect of an actual newcomer in such a matter, but rather with an old-timer's sense of entitlement.
Much of that is of course subjective, and naturally I couldn't (and don't) swear to it. And had Shigs confined his (after six months) entry to Hatrack to foolish and crassly expressed opinions, I would be much more inclined to credit that useful skepticism to believe instinct. The part where he claimed to have read, though, was shown he hadn't, and then behaved as though he hadn't misstepped at all wore through that.
I'll put it another way: if you don't want to go through 'it' with the peanut gallery, Shigs, then if you're going to be hostile and insensitive when someone is posting about a frustrating personal experience, at least make sure you actually read what they say to base your criticism on.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Thanks for the advice, Keesh. I'll give it all of the consideration that it deserves.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wow.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
House GOP Amendment I think, guts Obamacare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
John Boehner confirmed to CNN that he has told House Republicans he will no longer negotiate legislative deals with the president.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: John Boehner confirmed to CNN that he has told House Republicans he will no longer negotiate legislative deals with the president.
I'm not surprised. Ever since the debt ceiling crisis where Boehner pulled out of talks, without any sense of manners I got the impression that things were hostile between them. It's only gotten worse since then.
Hopefully the House and the President will get back on speaking terms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
We'll see if that tough talk (which I suspect is designed to soothe hurt Tea Party Republicans and sympathizers) lasts the two months until we've got another gun to our collective head. Much will depend, I think, on whether the public will still hold Republicans more responsible when that crisis is about to break...heck, it's about to break *now*, but I mean hours and days rather than weeks and months.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Why is it so hard for the brain trust to figure out Shigosei = Shigs, they even posted in the same thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
whatever, shigs
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Why is it so hard for the brain trust to figure out Shigosei = Shigs, they even posted in the same thread.
Plus, their posting style is exactly the sa--
Hmm.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Jesus, this is too much intricacy for me to handle. I'm out again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i have in my hand a list of 205 posters known to be shigs
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My point though still stands, the US sneezes everyone else jumps.
What would you prefer to have happened 70 years ago? Hitler or Japan win, maybe? Because everything that has followed was a result of that war.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Shigs, unless you can answer why you knew Blayne was Canadian, then there's no other conclusion than you just being an alt.
I just can't think of which poster's style this is.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My point though still stands, the US sneezes everyone else jumps.
What would you prefer to have happened 70 years ago? Hitler or Japan win, maybe? Because everything that has followed was a result of that war.
Non sequitor? I don't understand how this accurately responds to my point.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My point though still stands, the US sneezes everyone else jumps.
What would you prefer to have happened 70 years ago? Hitler or Japan win, maybe? Because everything that has followed was a result of that war.
Non sequitor? I don't understand how this accurately responds to my point.
Your point was that the US has an inordinate amount of power/influence in the world, right? And is also too focused on controlling the rest of the world, right?
What else did you think could happen after WWII? the US was still pretty isolationist until then, and therefore not particularly likely to interfere much outside its borders and Central America.
After WWII, there were two sides, the winners and the losers. Of the winners, only the US was, in terms of manpower and infrastructure, relatively unscathed. Most of Europe was a giant mess, and deprived of an entire generation of men. The same for Japan.
The US was the only country large enough, with enough infrastructure, manpower, and know-how to dominate in manufacturing. At the same time, the US needed oil badly, to support its expansion (as did Europe) so it started interfering in the Middle East.
Everything followed from the conditions in September 1945. You can say that US foreign policy has been ignorant, shortsighted, self-serving, and rapacious, but...who would you have preferred to win, then? You really think Germany or Japan would, at this point, be as willing to accept dissent around the world?
The US may do some bad stuff in the world, but we're not running around killing the dissenters and journalists. I somehow doubt that the Third Reich or Imperial Japan would be so accepting of criticism.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No that is not my point, (whether or not I agree with it is not relevant) but that is not my point, please try again, read back to the previous post, the response to it, and my response to that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, that last page was a little hard to follow, but I think I got it now.
Your point appears to have been that the world feared the fiscal cliff, right? And that the US has too much effect on the rest of the world?
If that's correct, then my whole post largely still stands. Everything follows from the results of WWII, Blayne. Somebody had to win, and that winner was going to dominate the world for the next 70+ years.
There are no "ifs". Write some alternate histories like Harry Turtledove if it makes you happy, but the world political/economic situation is the way it is today for very clear reasons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Someone's defensive.
But no, still wrong. Try again. I'll even drop a hint.
quote: Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Try again.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Someone's defensive.
But no, still wrong. Try again. I'll even drop a hint.
quote: Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Try again.
Blayne, I don't want to be mean, but I'm not interested enough to continue this discussion. Perhaps someone else is, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Usually not.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Shigs, unless you can answer why you knew Blayne was Canadian, then there's no other conclusion than you just being an alt.
I just can't think of which poster's style this is.
Or, you know, a lurker.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Someone's defensive.
But no, still wrong. Try again. I'll even drop a hint.
quote: Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Try again.
Blayne, I don't want to be mean, but I'm not interested enough to continue this discussion. Perhaps someone else is, though.
Of course you're not because you embarrassed yourself, you jumped to an entirely incorrect assumption because you didn't take a very good look at the context.
I'll be kind to you and magnanimously light the way for you as only someone as kind and wise as myself could; my point is that I as a Canadian, even though I am not American have every right to discuss US domestic politics because the US's unique position in the world has for the better or worse, a ways and means of affecting other countries economically and politically, Canada especially so due to our massive amount of overland trade.
And was in response to what seemed like the usual "why are you discussing US politics" from Shigs when I accidentally break out the "We's" which is easy enough mistake to make when 90% of your television is Merican'.
As for Shigs I've seen some similar posting styles from a few bad trolls from SA, I think they (FYAD) even have a contest going on to pick a website/subforum and troll it.
Posted by Shigs (Member # 12864) on :
Gosh Blayne you sure do seem to know a lot about this merry little band of trolls.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Someone's defensive.
But no, still wrong. Try again. I'll even drop a hint.
quote: Congratulations Blayne, when did you become a United States citizen?
Try again.
Blayne, I don't want to be mean, but I'm not interested enough to continue this discussion. Perhaps someone else is, though.
Of course you're not because you embarrassed yourself, you jumped to an entirely incorrect assumption because you didn't take a very good look at the context.
I'll be kind to you and magnanimously light the way for you as only someone as kind and wise as myself could; my point is that I as a Canadian, even though I am not American have every right to discuss US domestic politics because the US's unique position in the world has for the better or worse, a ways and means of affecting other countries economically and politically, Canada especially so due to our massive amount of overland trade.
And was in response to what seemed like the usual "why are you discussing US politics" from Shigs when I accidentally break out the "We's" which is easy enough mistake to make when 90% of your television is Merican'.
As for Shigs I've seen some similar posting styles from a few bad trolls from SA, I think they (FYAD) even have a contest going on to pick a website/subforum and troll it.
Why would you assume that I care if you talk about US politics?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Probably because you responded to a disagreement as to whether Blayne should be commenting on US politics using words such as "we" and "us" Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Probably because you responded to a disagreement as to whether Blayne should be commenting on US politics using words such as "we" and "us"
i just thought he was complaining about the huge effect that the US has on the rest of the world, relatively. It does, he's right. He's wrong that it could have gone down any other way, after Sept 1945, though. The US isn't led, on average, by people any better or worse than any other country's. We get the occasional Dubya, but other countries have their fools, too. I think it would be more ideal if the most powerful country were also a more politically moderate one, but....what else would you expect, given the history and geography of the US?
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
"Most powerful" by definition precludes "politically moderate".
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"He's wrong that it could have gone down any other way"
What. When did I make this claim? You do realize your talking like a crazy person?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: "Most powerful" by definition precludes "politically moderate".
In terms of a nation's power with respect to other nations? How so?
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Is there an example of the worlds most powerful nation at any given time being politically moderate?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I find it difficult to wrap my mind around that question. How does one go about evaluating whether Victorian England, Tang Dynasty China, or early Imperial Rome were politically moderate or not?
quote:Originally posted by steven: i just thought he was complaining about the huge effect that the US has on the rest of the world ...
Well, he wasn't. He was justifying his use of pronouns, which makes this kind of funny.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would firstly argue that the question is probably nonsensical as nations are aggregates of people and political interests organized by historical happenstance to be a particular form of government at any one time and the amount of military or economical sway said powers may have I don't think has any bearing on how "moderate" the country or empire as a whole is.
Secondly I would have to ask how are we defining moderate? If we accept it generally as the middle position between two potentially extremist positions held by opposing factions within the government I find it difficult to conclude how could it be possible that there isn't a single government for all governments that doesn't have a moderate faction that holds the balance of power, at a minimum for a significant duration.
Thirdly since large powerful empires have been known first and foremost for their relative stability as opposed to whimsical projects its also difficult to really come to the conclusion that empires are generally extreme.
Which comes to my fourth point as to how do we define extremism in the absence of a definition for being moderate? Its willingness to use military force? Use of military force has been an accepted state practice since forever so its difficult to really determine it as extreme. Rapid conquests as opposed to border skirmishes? Again, accepted practice for the longest time until very recently and in many historical cases this was generally beneficial to the conquered party.
Lacking definitions I would consider the question and conclusion that powerful dominant hegemons are not politically moderate or whether they are moderate to be nonsensical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Is there an example of the worlds most powerful nation at any given time being politically moderate?
As Mucus highlights, the question is a complicated one. I was trying to pin down what you might mean by one of the terms, power, but political moderation is also vital to the question. Moderate with respect to whom? Other nations? Or moderate with respect to itself and its own vocal fringe elements? Or moderate along the lines of treating other nations with political moderation?
It's a big question, and it seems to me you haven't supported it other than to assert its truth.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "He's wrong that it could have gone down any other way"
What. When did I make this claim? You do realize your talking like a crazy person?
I have misunderstood you, then.
But then, what even is the point of complaining about the extent of US power/influence? Who would you rather have been the most powerful nation for the last 70 years? A victorious Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, maybe?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Can you please quote where I made such a complaint?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Happening now. Long series of slow ass speeches, but I think Obama's is coming up soon.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)