I was surprised to see no one here comment on this yet.
The speech Tuesday night by Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney, and the keynote address by Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, were very effective, each in its own way.
Ann Romney succeeded very well in her evident purpose of humanizing Mitt, making him more appealing--especially to women. I liked her line when she said that she and Mitt did not have a storybook marriage, they had a real marriage. One her best statements was at the end, when she offered her solemn commitment that "This man will not fail." She mentioned only briefly her struggle with cancer and MS, and how Mitt stayed with her through it all, but that was impressive too. Also helpful was her statement: "Mitt does not like to talk about his helping people, because he considers that a privilege, not a political talking point." Mitt came out on the platform to stand with his wife after she finished her speech. I thought it was a good touch that he was there. You could see the warmth between them.
Christie accomplished his purpose of showing that the Republican campaign is about the big issues, not the petty sniping negative attacks that characterize the Obama campaign. He was able to say that the difficult things that need to be done nationally have already been done on the state level in New Jersey--eliminating a huge deficit when he took office, and balancing three straight budgets while reducing taxes, bringing teachers' unions under control, and even dealing with entitlements effectively in a way that preserved pensions by keeping them from going broke. He enunciated clearly the philosophy of the Republican Party in this election cycle. Neither he nor Ann mentioned Obama by name, but at one point he directly addressed the president: "Mister president, leadership does not consist in following polls, leadership consists in changing polls." He also referred to the current president as an "absentee president." This could turn up in the campaign as a recurring appellation.
I liked Peggy Noonan's observation (on FNC) that Christie gave a good speech and a good Jackie Gleason imitation.
It was amusing to see the signs all over the convention floor, as well as written large on the wall, "We did build it." That will probably be one of the key slogans of the campaign--one that Obama handed to them with his foolish misstatement (which he probably actually believed, more the shame).
I watched several networks, mainly ABC and FNC--the latter mainly for the followup. 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. At the very least, nobody shot themselves in the foot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama didn't misspeak, he has been willfully and maliciously taken out of context. And I'm sure he actually believes what he actually said, not what Republicans have edited it to mean.
I'm not sure what kind of "points" you're talking about. If you mean polling points, I think you're nuts. Christie spent most of his speech talking about himself, not Romney. I'm sure that did a great job boosting Christie's favorables, but not Romney's.
Ann Romney, and the cadre of women they trotted out the same day as finalizing an anti-gay, anti-women platform, did an okay job of trying to hold the line on the gender gap, but Ann Romney telling America why she fell in love with her husband isn't going to override most of the prevailing issues with most women who weren't sympathetic to begin with.
Plus, I actually found part of her speech rather insulting. She had a line where she said something to the effect of, unlike men, women actually know they'll have to work hard in life for the things they want. Wow, way to throw men under the bus to try and play on girl power.
You also forgot to mention that Ron Paul's delegates were shouted down, not allowed to speak, and their votes were actually not counted in some instances. Hasn't exactly been a harmonious first day of Mitt love.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well if there's one man who can distinguish a campaign away from sniping, negative attacks it's governor Christoe.
Also, Lyrhawn, it's not anti-gay. We just can't let gays destroy America is all. And it's not anti-woman, wives just need to be submissive to their husbands, that's all.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Ann Romney succeeded very well in her evident purpose of humanizing Mitt, making him more appealing--especially to women."
What women?
Perhaps you misspoke? Perhaps you meant "I THINK Ann succeeded in making Mitt more appealing to women." Forgive me if I'm just focusing on semantics, but unless you are a woman (and you might be, for all I know), or have actualy numbers, your comment doesn't hold up.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What's FNC?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think Ann Romney's speech was quite effective. I didn't love every single line, but I definitely felt she believed the things she was saying. I think she effectively demonstrated that Romney knows what it's like to take nothing for granted, and work hard for success.
She touched on education, even pointing out her favorite program her husband was a part of was a scholarship program. Her points about how it should be hard to succeed, but that it shouldn't be as hard as it is, as well as that if things had been prosperous these past four years that her husband's success would not be under attack was poignant.
Doesn't mean I'm voting for Romney, my vote is still up for grabs (But I'm still heavily leaning towards Obama). It's hard for me to get excited about this election, because honestly I feel like Congress is the entity that needs a hard reset.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I admit to be mildly curious if her description of their living conditions are actually true. They both had massive trust funds at the time, but neither were working and Mitt had plans for their vast fortune. On the other hand, it's a pretty easy lie to tell and it obviously not be beyond the Romney campaign to tell it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It's a hell of a lot easier to live a small home when you know a mansion is awaiting you once you can tap your trust funds.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What's FNC?
Fox News
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
FNC=Fox News Channel. Different from local Fox stations with their own newscasts.
Women commentators stated they thought Ann Romney's speech suceeded in making Mitt more appealing to women. Also anyone can see that focusing on such things as love, their life as a family, etc., speaks to women.
Everyone knows that humanizing Mitt, especially helping women to know him better, was Ann's primary assignment. I heard no one on any network suggest she failed to do that.
As for the truthfulness about their early struggles and small home where their kitchen table was propped up by a sawhorse--most trust funds are not accessible until a specified age. Mitt's father, George, is exactly the kind of father who would insist on making sure his son had to work and struggle to make it in life, so he would not grow up spoiled. It seems to have worked. It has also been reported that Mitt Romney gave to charity the entire trust fund he received from his father.
Kwea, some of us are able to stand living in a small home in a dark, dirty, disappointing world because we know we have a mansion waiting for us in Heaven and the New Earth.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, Lyrhawn, it's not anti-gay. We just can't let gays destroy America is all.
It's not homophobic if you're not lynching them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also anyone can see that focusing on such things as love, their life as a family, etc., speaks to women.
Is that actually a thing? Seems like a way to avoid saying Fox News.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Lambert RNC Thread, the inevitable TL;DR version
1. Republicans said some things. Look at how nice they are!
2. Fox News Channel also thought the things the Republicans said were very good!
3. Liberals are terrible!
4. I'm going to heaven, listen to me! This all has to do with God!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As for the truthfulness about their early struggles and small home where their kitchen table was propped up by a sawhorse--most trust funds are not accessible until a specified age.
Yes, but theirs was. That was how Ann Romney described how she knew what is was to struggle. They had to sell stock from their trust funds during this period.
quote:It has also been reported that Mitt Romney gave to charity the entire trust fund he received from his father.
Reported by whom? I'm almost positive that that is a lie.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It's a hell of a lot easier to live a small home when you know a mansion is awaiting you once you can tap your trust funds.
To be fair, it's not like they could control whether or not they had that money and it does show a great deal of discipline to live frugally under those circumstances, if that is actually what happened. I think it could also lead people to mistakenly think they know what it is like for people struggling to make it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Yes, but theirs was. That was how Ann Romney described how she knew what is was to struggle. They had to sell stock from their trust funds during this period.
The horror!
We should all be so lucky to live through that kind of suffering.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I have a good friend that married into a family that owned a state-wide chain of stores which they sold a majority stake of for 10s of millions of dollars. This friend does not get a lot of financial support from his in-laws and has a decent career supporting his family, but his lifestyle is still fundamentally different from mine because he'll never truly be in financial jeopardy because of illness or poor decisions. His family, while having an income comparable to mine, can buy a much bigger house, a fancier car, and take extravagant and frequent vacations.
When we were both laid off from the same position at the same time, my job hunt was anxious and desperate. His was not. He can say he knows what it's like to be out of work but when he says that he's not talking about the same experience that most people have in that situation.
It's because of this that the Romneys' "we know what it's like to be poor college kids" story rings so empty to me. They had a trust fund that paid all of their expenses so neither had to get a job and they belonged to a wealthy family that was unlikely to actually let them starve or truly struggle to provide for their basic needs. Mitt's family had an endless well of political and business connections from which he could draw to start his business career.
I'm sure Mitt worked plenty hard to build his own fortune, but he is not the self-made man that started from scratch that his father was. He had a significant head start and uncommonly advantageous circumstances that are not cancelled out by recounting the veneer of a simulacrum of typical college life.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Yes, but theirs was. That was how Ann Romney described how she knew what is was to struggle. They had to sell stock from their trust funds during this period.
The horror!
We should all be so lucky to live through that kind of suffering.
Wow.
Sometimes I get depressed when I think about how my congenital deformity endangers my ability to work, and how my work is bad for my health due to my disability, and how many times I've come close to being murdered while doing my job, and how if and when I am fully disabled I will have to rely on Arizona's healthcare which has gone under drastic budget cuts since Gov. Brewer took over while already being in the low end prior to her cuts of people without children and the like.
But then I think about how hard it was for the Romney family to bide their time, waiting for a big fat check that neither of them earned. I think about how good I've got it, and then bash my head into the bathroom sink.
Poverty is not about having unattractive furniture or eating cheap food, it is knowing just how close you are to being homeless every single day and not being able to change it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It has also been reported that Mitt Romney gave to charity the entire trust fund he received from his father.
Reported by whom? I'm almost positive that that is a lie.
quote: LAMB: By the way, why did your father not give you any of his inheritance?
ROMNEY: Well, he didn’t have as much as I think some people anticipated. And I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad.
But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor, the George W. Romney School of Public Management.
And as an institute of public management, it helps young people learn about government and about serving in public service. And that’s where his inheritance ended up.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So that's a false then. He donated his inheritance (when he was already wealthy), not his trust fund (which he used to pay for college) and it was to a private school, not a charity.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Right. I was clarifying what I thought Ron(?) was alluding to. It wasn't the trust fund, it was his inheritance.
quote:They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income. It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.
We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year—it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.
Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.
So it doesn't sound like a trust fund so much as a forced investment account where George squirreled away Mitt's birthday money. Based on Ann's statement, it seems the value of the stock was something in the $10,000-100,000 range. That's a lot more than most kids going to college, especially for the 60s, but maybe less than what most people think when they hear 'trust fund'. That said, the fact that this is the only income source pointed to in the interview doesn't preclude the possibility that Ann's parents (who were also very wealthy) may have helped. Nor does it expiate the obvious security benefit of having wealthy parents that MattP points out in his post above. </edit>
[ August 29, 2012, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think Tevye says it best, which I'll paraphrase: "May the Lord smite me with it, and may I never recover!" in reference to the early 'struggles' of the Romneys.
The funny thing is, I wouldn't lose respect for Romney on the personal background aspect if he didn't try and be just-folks, which is obviously BS.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But Rakeesh, he knows what it's like to be unemployed! He's a regular Joe just like you and me.
Have you see his shirtsleeves rolled up?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
You know, Rakeesh and Lyr, I respect you both and think you're great guys, but I don't really think either of you know what you're talking about. You're judging this man and his family, their choices and their self-perceptions, based on what, exactly. Some news articles you read?
I mean, I understand that people who put themselves in the national spotlight need to expect their intentions to be weighed based on those sorts of criteria, and maybe I'm overreacting to the statements you've made, but everything I know about the Romneys is that, despite their wealth, they're very caring, down-to-earth people who open their hearts and homes to people from all walks of life. The snide conception of a bunch of richie-riches who pretend to slum it in order to burnish their populist cred couldn't, from my perspective, be more wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: You know, Rakeesh and Lyr, I respect you both and think you're great guys, but I don't really think either of you know what you're talking about. You're judging this man and his family, their choices and their self-perceptions, based on what, exactly. Some news articles you read?
I mean, I understand that people who put themselves in the national spotlight need to expect their intentions to be weighed based on those sorts of criteria, and maybe I'm overreacting to the statements you've made, but everything I know about the Romneys is that, despite their wealth, they're very caring, down-to-earth people who open their hearts and homes to people from all walks of life. The snide conception of a bunch of richie-riches who pretend to slum it in order to burnish their populist cred couldn't, from my perspective, be more wrong.
The thing is, I actually like Romney. I agree with you that he actually seems like a pretty genial, nice, caring guy. He obviously cares a great deal for his family, he's honestly devoted to his faith in a way I totally respect, and I think if I had the opportunity, he'd be an interesting guy to have a beer with.
All that aside, he's a total phony. I'm not basing my opinion on any news articles, I'm basing it on my observations of the actual guy. He's an awkward robot who is totally incapable of relating to an average guy because he has no idea what their lives are like. His and his wife's complaints and pained attempts to tell us how they're just like us are insulting. That thing about how he knows what it's like to be unemployed, or any of the other goofy statements he makes. He called himself middle class for God's sake!
If he'd stop pretending and actually BE Mitt Romney, I'd have more respect for him. Instead, every time he pretends to be just like the rest of us, I'm going to make fun of him.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think if I had the opportunity, he'd be an interesting guy to have a (root) beer with.
FTFY.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hah, good point. Well, he can have the root beer.
I'd have an actual beer.
Or a Pepsi, it'd depend on my mood. I actually rarely drink. I just had to throw out a few beers that have been in my fridge for a year that are well past their expiration dates.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a note: Mitt and Ann moved into BYU married student housing. (Tuition would have been free for both of them.) They were living off an account into which Mitt's father -- a multimillionaire and governor -- had put thousands of dollars over several years, and which had appreciated 15x its original value over those years; let's assume that, pessimistically, it only held $120,000.
Not hardship. Not even minor inconvenience.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tuition would have been free for both of them.
Why is that? Did they have full-ride scholarships?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By his standards, I too am enduring "hardship."
but it's not. it's just a moment of applied non-opulence in an unbroken life of privilege. I mean if I were to describe my college travails as "hardship" someone would need to slap me good.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You know, this whole foolish carping about Mitt Romney not possibly being able to relate to the common person is just propaganda manufactured by the Obama people in an effort to discredit what are really Romney's vast, vast strengths (especially compared to Obama) in real personal accomplishment and success in business and at nearly everything else he has ever done. As someone has observed (I don't know if it is really true, but it probably is) Obama never so much as managed a lemonade stand. What Obama represents is Chicago gutter politics, and all he ever accomplished in college or anywhere was with the money and ghost-writing assistance and string-pulling of others (to get him into Harvard despite poor grades), mostly documented radicals.
So forgive me if I am totally unimpressed by the intellectual bankruptcy that leads some people to follow blindly the Obama party line of making up negative things to say about the Romneys, without any knowledgeable basis. Mitt Romney is probably the most genuinely accomplished person who has ever run for president, and he has exactly the experience that is needed to address the economic problems America faces. No wonder the Obama people are not just running scared, they are running terrified. And notice how virtually all other Democratic candidates are trying desperately to distance themselves from the lost cause at the head of their ticket.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No wonder the Obama people are not just running scared, they are running terrified. And notice how virtually all other Democratic candidates are trying desperately to distance themselves from the lost cause at the head of their ticket.
Neither of these things is even remotely true. Obama's 'running terrified' from currently being projected as the greatly likely winner? Cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, if I were to systematically and thoroughly disprove every single claim in your last post, would it change your mind at all? Is there absolutely anything anyone could say to you to pierce the rock-hard shell you've built around your profoundly deluded worldview?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It's a hell of a lot easier to live a small home when you know a mansion is awaiting you once you can tap your trust funds.
To be fair, it's not like they could control whether or not they had that money and it does show a great deal of discipline to live frugally under those circumstances, if that is actually what happened. I think it could also lead people to mistakenly think they know what it is like for people struggling to make it.
Certainly all the above is true. What's unforgivable, in my opinion, is the arrogance to assume you know what it's like for someone who doesn't have the enormous safety net that you have under you, if you have one like that, should you fail. I know people who live modestly and have lived modestly, who have means and resources well beyond what they consume. I'm one of them actually. And I don't for a second believe I know what it's like not to have that. I've had friends who've had to live that way, and I don't know how they do it, because I never had to. Me thinking that I know would be the height of arrogance. The attitude involved in even claiming that you know of such things, when you don't, speaks to a blindness, and or falseness, that should cause shame and embarrassment when it is heard and spoken.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to be clear: Romney's painfully transparent efforts to appear relatable in his personal financial and working life to the middle class don't make me despise him. They don't even make me think terribly badly of him, since as politicians go that's a bit par for the course. And they certainly don't lead me to make any judgment as to what sort of person he is on a moral and ethical level.
They just make me lose respect for him in that area, because it's treating me like I'm stupid. It is, for my vote's sake, a lost opportunity because if he would just cop to being a rich guy born of a powerful guy, an easier choice since it's obvious, he could pivot to trying to explain something like actual reasons aside from phony biographical nods as to why people should feel like he understands them. Many of the best leaders in history have been, after all, children of privilege, able to relate to their less fortunate fellows.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ron, if I were to systematically and thoroughly disprove every single claim in your last post, would it change your mind at all? Is there absolutely anything anyone could say to you to pierce the rock-hard shell you've built around your profoundly deluded worldview?
Just do it. Pick them apart bit by bit. Make a discussion about them because of the intransigence of some people's dedication to belief in them.
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
I just want to point out that the Republican's slogan is "I did build it" Obama said "We built it." And it is indeed very amusing to see the signs all over the republican convention floor, a stadium, 63% of which ($86 million) was paid by the Florida government.
It's one of the many nuanced tricks Republicans use to misguide people. Not too many people believe they are solely responsible for building a company and “I did build it” comes off as arrogant.
In the same theme, I can’t count how many times I’ve heard Hannity “slip” up and say the president promised to cut the debt by half or when the DOE loaned $600 billion to Solyndra. On countless occasions I’ve seen people re-stating those slip-ups, such as “Obama said he’ll cut the debt by half, instead he doubled it!” It’s kind of funny since it implies some people believed it’s possible to pay off half of the debt while being in the second worst recession. For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
And, oh my lord, would that I could travel to a parallel universe where the republicans had the presidency right now; do you know how hard they would crow about this amazing achievement and how it shows how committed they are to sound fiscal governance?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Either Matt Taibbi is losing his edge or I'm just becoming desensitized...
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mitt Romney is probably the most genuinely accomplished person who has ever run for president, and he has exactly the experience that is needed to address the economic problems America faces.
Are you referring to the accomplishments such as KB Toys?:
quote: In a typical private-equity fragging, Bain put up a mere $18 million to acquire KB Toys and got big banks to finance the remaining $302 million it needed. Less than a year and a half after the purchase, Bain decided to give itself a gift known as a "dividend recapitalization." The firm induced KB Toys to redeem $121 million in stock and take out more than $66 million in bank loans – $83 million of which went directly into the pockets of Bain's owners and investors, including Romney. "The dividend recap is like borrowing someone else's credit card to take out a cash advance, and then leaving them to pay it off," says Heather Slavkin Corzo, who monitors private equity takeovers as the senior legal policy adviser for the AFL-CIO.
Bain ended up earning a return of at least 370 percent on the deal, while KB Toys fell into bankruptcy, saddled with millions in debt. KB's former parent company, Big Lots, alleged in bankruptcy court that Bain's "unjustified" return on the dividend recap was actually "900 percent in a mere 16 months."
Or Ampad?:
quote: Bain bought Ampad in 1992 for just $5 million, financing the rest of the deal with borrowed cash. Within three years, Ampad was paying $60 million in annual debt payments, plus an additional $7 million in management fees. A year later, Bain led Ampad to go public, cashed out about $50 million in stock for itself and its investors, charged the firm $2 million for arranging the IPO and pocketed another $5 million in "management" fees. Ampad wound up going bankrupt, and hundreds of workers lost their jobs, but Bain and Romney weren't crying: They'd made more than $100 million on a $5 million investment.
Or how he took time to relate to an employee at Ampad?:
quote: At one point during Bain's looting of Ampad, a worker named Randy Johnson sent a handwritten letter to Romney, asking him to intervene to save an Ampad factory in Marion, Indiana. In a sterling demonstration of manliness and willingness to face a difficult conversation, Romney, who had just lost his race for the Senate in Massachusetts, wrote Johnson that he was "sorry," but his lawyers had advised him not to get involved.
Or how he handed out bonuses to his employees?:
quote: "I insisted on having almost dictatorial powers," he bragged years after the Ampad deal. Over the years, colleagues would anonymously whisper stories about Mitt the Boss to the press, describing him as cunning, manipulative and a little bit nuts, with "an ability to identify people's insecurities and exploit them for his own benefit." One former Bain employee said that Romney would screw around with bonuses in small amounts, just to mess with people: He would give $3 million to one, $3.1 million to another and $2.9 million to a third, just to keep those below him on edge.
Or Dunkin' Donuts?:
quote: In 2010, a year after the last round of Hertz layoffs, Carlyle teamed up with Bain to take $500 million out of another takeover target: the parent company of Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins. Dunkin' had to take out a $1.25 billion loan to pay a dividend to its new private equity owners. So think of this the next time you go to Dunkin' Donuts for a cup of coffee: A small cup of joe costs about $1.69 in most outlets, which means that for years to come, Dunkin' Donuts will have to sell about 2,011,834 small coffees every month – about $3.4 million – just to meet the interest payments on the loan it took out to pay Bain and Carlyle their little one-time dividend. And that doesn't include the principal on the loan, or the additional millions in debt that Dunkin' has to pay every year to get out from under the $2.4 billion in debt it's now saddled with after having the privilege of being taken over – with borrowed money – by the firm that Romney built.
Or how much he spent on those 2002 Winter Olympics?:
quote: The taxpayer-funded subsidies that Romney has received go well beyond the humdrum, backdoor, welfare-sucking that all supposedly self-made free marketeers inevitably indulge in. Not that Romney hasn't done just fine at milking the government when it suits his purposes, the most obvious instance being the incredible $1.5 billion in aid he siphoned out of the U.S. Treasury as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake – a sum greater than all federal spending for the previous seven U.S. Olympic games combined. Romney, the supposed fiscal conservative, blew through an average of $625,000 in taxpayer money per athlete – an astounding increase of 5,582 percent over the $11,000 average at the 1984 games in Los Angeles.
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
And, oh my lord, would that I could travel to a parallel universe where the republicans had the presidency right now; do you know how hard they would crow about this amazing achievement and how it shows how committed they are to sound fiscal governance?
I was looking for a nice chart but I just googled the individual years. FY 2009 Budget deficit was around $1.4 Trillion. Projected 2012 budget deficit (As of August 22) is $1.1 Trillion. If spending doesn't increase in the next 4 months, the deficit was reduced by 21.4% over 3 years.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Isn't a lot of that the ARRA stimulus spending wearing off, though?
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Isn't a lot of that the ARRA stimulus spending wearing off, though?
Some yes, although there are fewer teachers, fewer firefighters, far less spending on Iraq as we withdrew most of our forces (though spending a bit more in Afghanistan which will start decreasing from next year). Medicare future growth in spending is capped under the PPACA and defence spending will be cut unless the Republicans have their way.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
And, oh my lord, would that I could travel to a parallel universe where the republicans had the presidency right now; do you know how hard they would crow about this amazing achievement and how it shows how committed they are to sound fiscal governance?
This table from the OMB says the 2012 budget deficit is $1.327T, 2011 was $1.300T, 2010 was $1.293T, 2009 was $1.412T, 2008 was $0.459T, 2007 was $0.161T and so on. The average deficit 2005-2008 was $0.30T, while the average deficit 2009-2012 was $1.33T.
Huge deficits during a recession and the immediate aftermath are understandable, but I don't see any way, based on those numbers, that Obama's deficits can be construed as being down 30% (unless you're talking about the projected 2013 budget; but even that is still three times the average deficit from the pre-recession years). In fact, the projected deficit for every single year until 2017 is more than double the average from 2005-2008 and more than 50% bigger than the biggest pre-2009 deficit.
<edit>I see Slavim added a new post while I was writing. I'd be interested in seeing the source for the $1.1T projection. Maybe they're using a different projection methodology than the OMB?</edit>
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
And, oh my lord, would that I could travel to a parallel universe where the republicans had the presidency right now; do you know how hard they would crow about this amazing achievement and how it shows how committed they are to sound fiscal governance?
This table from the OMB says the 2012 budget deficit is $1.327T, 2011 was $1.300T, 2010 was $1.293T, 2009 was $1.412T, 2008 was $0.459T, 2007 was $0.161T and so on. The average deficit 2005-2008 was $0.30T, while the average deficit 2009-2012 was $1.33T.
Huge deficits during a recession and the immediate aftermath are understandable, but I don't see any way, based on those numbers, that Obama's deficits can be construed as being down 30% (unless you're talking about the projected 2013 budget; but even that is still three times the average deficit from the pre-recession years). In fact, the projected deficit for every single year until 2017 is more than double the average from 2004-2008 and more than 50% bigger than the biggest pre-2009 deficit.
<edit>I see Slavim added a new post while I was writing. I'd be interested in seeing the source for the $1.1T projection. Perhaps they're using a different methodology than the OMB?</edit>
You have a very good point. However you have to admit that it's difficult to get things done in a Washington climate where 10:1 spending cuts to tax increase deals are flat out rejected and speaker Boehner boasting about getting 98% of what he wanted in compromise talks.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I wonder what the difference between the CBO numbers and the OMB numbers are. Looking on the CBO website, their numbers for past years are the same as the OMBs. Perhaps the ones on the chart I linked are out of date.
I think the bigger point, though, is that deficits are much higher than they were at any time prior to the recession, and that there's no real belief they'll decrease to the levels of recent history in the next five years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Romney saved the Olympics. That's the story out of the Olympics. Quiet, you godless commies!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Isn't a lot of that the ARRA stimulus spending wearing off, though?
Ohh. hmm.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For some reason I can’t find the deficit numbers very easy but the president has decreased the deficit by about 30% as far as I know over the past 3.5 years.
And, oh my lord, would that I could travel to a parallel universe where the republicans had the presidency right now; do you know how hard they would crow about this amazing achievement and how it shows how committed they are to sound fiscal governance?
This table from the OMB says the 2012 budget deficit is $1.327T, 2011 was $1.300T, 2010 was $1.293T, 2009 was $1.412T, 2008 was $0.459T, 2007 was $0.161T and so on. The average deficit 2005-2008 was $0.30T, while the average deficit 2009-2012 was $1.33T.
Huge deficits during a recession and the immediate aftermath are understandable, but I don't see any way, based on those numbers, that Obama's deficits can be construed as being down 30% (unless you're talking about the projected 2013 budget; but even that is still three times the average deficit from the pre-recession years). In fact, the projected deficit for every single year until 2017 is more than double the average from 2005-2008 and more than 50% bigger than the biggest pre-2009 deficit.
<edit>I see Slavim added a new post while I was writing. I'd be interested in seeing the source for the $1.1T projection. Maybe they're using a different projection methodology than the OMB?</edit>
Where do Congressional Republicans fit into this discussion?
Obama doesn't make this stuff up all by himself, in fact, the power to spend is exclusively held by Congress. Ever since the GOP takeover anyway, and I'd argue ever since Brown's win in Massachusetts, Obama hasn't been able to spend a dime without GOP approval. So how is this all his cross to bear alone?
He clearly hasn't gotten everything he wants, and in terms of budget reforms, I'd say he hasn't gotten what he wants at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Right. I was clarifying what I thought Ron(?) was alluding to. It wasn't the trust fund, it was his inheritance.
quote:They were not easy years. You have to understand, I was raised in a lovely neighborhood, as was Mitt, and at BYU, we moved into a $62-a-month basement apartment with a cement floor and lived there two years as students with no income. It was tiny. And I didn’t have money to carpet the floor. But you can get remnants, samples, so I glued them together, all different colors. It looked awful, but it was carpeting.
We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt’s birthday money year to year—it wasn’t much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education.
Mitt and I walked to class together, shared housekeeping, had a lot of pasta and tuna fish and learned hard lessons.
So it doesn't sound like a trust fund so much as a forced investment account where George squirreled away Mitt's birthday money. Based on Ann's statement, it seems the value of the stock was something in the $10,000-100,000 range. That's a lot more than most kids going to college, especially for the 60s, but maybe less than what most people think when they hear 'trust fund'. That said, the fact that this is the only income source pointed to in the interview doesn't preclude the possibility that Ann's parents (who were also very wealthy) may have helped. Nor does it expiate the obvious security benefit of having wealthy parents that MattP points out in his post above. </edit>
That's my bad. I was wrong about it the stock being from their trust funds. Sorry. I was relying on half-remembered info and I should have been more thorough in checking it out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or am actually responsible for."
This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.
How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.
[ August 30, 2012, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You also forgot to mention that Ron Paul's delegates were shouted down, not allowed to speak, and their votes were actually not counted in some instances. Hasn't exactly been a harmonious first day of Mitt love.
Ron Paul's delegates were being extremely disruptive and disrespectful. I live in Nevada, and I was utterly livid when Ron Paul's people broke the rules and changed their vote to Ron Paul, instead of who the people of Nevada chose in their caucus. I was watching the RNC live on Youtube and yelled at my computer screen. They hi-jacked the delegation, changed their vote, and disenfranchised thousands of us that spent a Saturday morning going to the caucus. They flooded the state convention and had 20 people chosen as delegates, but promised that they would cast votes for Romney because they were bound to, they simply wanted to go to promote Ron Paul. They lied.
A lot of the screaming during speeches and booing was also done by the same people. I respect that you have a different candidate in mind, but there is no reason to be so disruptive and disrespectful towards the speakers. I felt sorry for the lady from Puerto Rico that was trying to speak when they were screaming. She wasn't able to get a word in for the first few minutes on stage due to them.
As far as the speakers, I didn't really care of Ann Romney. Her tone was strange, at times it seemed she was very nasally. I don't know if MS can cause something like that and if so I am going to feel really bad for saying that.
Cristy is... well Cristy. I enjoyed listening to him, I just thought he lacked substance. Paul Ryan last night I think had the best speech so far. I think he did what he needed to do most, which is introduce himself to people that just didn't know him. He is an infinitely better VP pick than Sarah Palin was, though I think there would have been better choices. Condi's speech was also pretty good, and I really wouldn't be surprised if she eventually runs for a governorship in California.
My biggest surprise is the convention itself. I think a lot of people were expecting something huge and different than the norm, but the convention just seems like business as usual.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or are actually responsible for."
This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.
How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.
I think that's fundamentally a problem of politics, though, not of party. I don't want to draw a false equivalence (because I know it's not the same thing), but Obama's posturing on war and foreign policy in the run-up to 2008 struck me as just as disingenuous. To me, it seemed like he'd found something he could hit that resonated with the populace, and despite his own understanding (reflected in his policies as President) that the issue was complicated and that national security sometimes necessitates things like surges, secret prisons, military tribunals and drone attacks, he used language and rhetoric (spin) that would appeal to a war-weary public.
I'm probably being overreactive to a spate of books on behavioral economics and psychology I've read recently (like "The Upside of Irrationality", "Thinking Fast and Slow", "The Righteous Mind", and "Nudge"), but I'm very bearish about the social utility of reasoned political appeals. I think we'd likely have a more functional political system if we weren't so dedicated on the myth of the rational voter as the building-block of American democracy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think we'd likely have a more functional political system if we weren't so dedicated on the myth of the rational voter as the building-block of American democracy.
Depends on who "we" is there. The majority of campaigning is definitely not dedicated to that myth. They are counting on uncritical, gut-response reception of their message and tune the message to get the best possible response of that type. I think this deliberate manipulation of the emotional response mechanism touted in books like Nudge is likely to negate its utility.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, do you basically not care about things like honesty, personal integrity, personal responsibility, character, etc.
You're wrong about the equivalency, the GOP is much worse in this respect, but that's not all that relevant.
These things are important. The GOP claims to believe that they are important and then runs headlong into making a complete mockery out of them. Their media wing of Fox News leads to people to be more wrong than if they didn't watch the news at all.
How can you full heartedly support this and not feel a burning sense of shame and still have the nerve to think of yourself as a decent person. I don't get it. I can't imagine being like that.
And let's not forget, besides the direct hazard of this GOP sponsored moral and intellectual decay, there are the indirect effects of basing policy on this and entrusting lying little weasels with power. The Bush presidency did enormous damage to the country in large part because of this. I don't think I'll ever get over having to go around to apologize to people for believing that my government wouldn't out and out lie to me to get us into an (ultimately pretty disastrous) war. Heck, you've got Mitt Romney running for President making one of his main points being against an approach to healthcare he knows is a good idea and is good for the country.
I actually agree with you about the populace in general being too immature (and maybe too stupid) to make appropriate political decisions. However, for me, that is a call to combat the causes of this, to encourage personal responsibility, character, and intellectual integrity, not to take advantage of it an encourage its growth.
The GOP is turning into a party of unquestioning support for our guy, unquestioning hatred for the other guy and using absurdly blatant dishonesty to do so. This is bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for the very souls of the people in the party.
And for some reason, decent people are okay with this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or am actually responsible for."
This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.
How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.
I'll join your club. I was excited to vote for the first time in 2000, I would have volunteered for the McCain campaign if I wasn't living in Hong Kong. I became a missionary in 2001, and came back in 2003. I was a Republican when I first got back, but I was voting for Kerry by 2004. It wasn't even a choice for me when McCain and Obama were up against each other.
Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise.
I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats. I think we're reaping the whirlwind for having a system that entrenches two parties, and prevents any outside groups from gaining traction. If you had to pick one of two people for every single job in your business, how effective could you possibly be?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And let me be clear, I'm not saying vote Democrat (I'm not and generally don't). I'm not saying don't vote Republican.
I'm saying oppose this blatant assault on moral and intellectual integrity. When people on your side do these things, call them on it; complain about it. Don't let blatant dishonesty stand. Stand up for personal responsibility as an actual principle, not as a buzz word used to blame poor people for their situation. Encourage people to find out the truth, to learn how things actually work, even if that plays against your preferred narrative. When you are wrong about something, admit it and apologize.
That's like the bare minimum it should take to be a decent person; a person of character.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure how anyone could believe in the myth of the rational voter after 2004.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats.
I think ultimately, if our country can be saved, it's going to come down to a moral and intellectual revival driven by responsible, decent people making hard stands. For me, one of the most pernicious things about the GOP's current course is that they have pretty much devalued and even replaced the meaning of those words so much so that there are a large number of people who believe their current moral and intellectual stuntedness is what it means to be honorable and responsible.
I mean, in a speech where he lauded adopting personal responsibility, Paul Ryan, the leading force in the GOP's obstruction of the debt ceiling, which was the undisputed cause of our credit downgrade, with no sense of shame, blamed President Obama for it.
Mass psychology is often a lot more dependent on individual voices than many people realize. Mobs can turning to violence and looting or astounding acts of altruism dependent on the example set by what the people who break the psychological surface tension do. I don't see much of that being done for the good right now (John McCain got beaten down in 2000 because he was, for a politician, basically a decent guy - beaten by a strategy of lying about him - and came back a whore who would say or do anything to get elected). Mostly, I see people going along with and contributing to the entrenched narrative that it is perfectly fine to tell completely false things and to take no responsibility for one's beliefs or actions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats.
I think ultimately, if our country can be saved, it's going to come down to a moral and intellectual revival driven by responsible, decent people making hard stands. For me, one of the most pernicious things about the GOP's current course is that they have pretty much devalued and even replaced the meaning of those words so much so that there are a large number of people who believe their current moral and intellectual stuntedness is what it means to be honorable and responsible.
I mean, in a speech where he lauded adopting personal responsibility, Paul Ryan, the leading force in the GOP's obstruction of the debt ceiling, which was the undisputed cause of our credit downgrade, with no sense of shame, blamed President Obama for it.
Mass psychology is often a lot more dependent on individual voices than many people realize. Mobs can turning to violence and looting or astounding acts of altruism dependent on the example set by what the people who break the psychological surface tension do. I don't see much of that being done for the good right now (John McCain got beaten down in 2000 because he was, for a politician, basically a decent guy - beaten by a strategy of lying about him - and came back a whore who would say or do anything to get elected). Mostly, I see people going along with and contributing to the entrenched narrative that it is perfectly fine to tell completely false things and to take no responsibility for one's beliefs or actions.
*nods*
I definitely agree that we need to expect much more honesty from our representatives.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's sort of it, but I have a different focus. It's more we need to expect more from ourselves and then expect more from other people. Dishonest politicians thrive because dishonesty works, in most cases a lot better than honesty.
In a way, it's not Rep Ryan's fault that he is a lying weasel. That's what Mitt Romney (no slouch in the outrageous lying category himself) was looking for, because that's what is going to help him. It's mostly the public's fault. This problem is a reflection of the moral and intellectual failings of the public.
I think it is a mistake to to leave it at "we need to expect more from our candidates". It draws the focus away from and in a way ignores/excuses that the ultimate responsibility for this state of affairs lies in the public and that the way to fix it is going to come from people accepting this and taking more personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think so. The only way we can come to expect honesty in any meaningful way from our poliicians is to put a greater premium on honesty both from ourselves and others.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
Quote from Black Blade:
Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise. ------ As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's sort of it, but I have a different focus. It's more we need to expect more from ourselves and then expect more from other people. Dishonest politicians thrive because dishonesty works, in most cases a lot better than honesty.
In a way, it's not Rep Ryan's fault that he is a lying weasel. That's what Mitt Romney (no slouch in the outrageous lying category himself) was looking for, because that's what is going to help him. It's mostly the public's fault. This problem is a reflection of the moral and intellectual failings of the public.
I think it is a mistake to to leave it at "we need to expect more from our candidates". It draws the focus away from and in a way ignores/excuses that the ultimate responsibility for this state of affairs lies in the public and that the way to fix it is going to come from people accepting this and taking more personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs.
Warning: I'm about to write a bunch of stuff that I only half-way believe, but I'm going to write it as pure polemic. Once I started I had a hard time stopping, and I really do half-believe most of it, so I'm still going to post it. But caveat lecteur.
I blame the electorate, too, but not for the same sins. I think the problem is that we, as the voting public, are discouraged from voting according to non-rational criteria (like 'I could have a beer with him' or 'He seems like a nice guy').
Instead, we're taught that we should rely solely on our ability to rationally weigh the balance of the policies and proposals of the candidates and vote for the one that optimizes some vaguely defined social welfare function. To me, that's what drives the spin machine; people just aren't very good at making those kinds of rational judgements, so when they're called upon to do so out of civic obligation it's easy to mislead them. I think we'd be better off recognizing that no one's (and I include myself in that) really that great at the sort of rational decision making that classic democratic theory teaches us to value, and trust the system to turn our various irrational impulses into a collectively good decision.
I see the greatest impediment to a functioning system as being the nattering class of political pundits who point their fingers down from the heights of their righteous indignation and condemn the unwashed public for not being smart enough to see the world in exactly the same way, with the same shadings and values, as they do. By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter. And when they're fooled, the shaming begins all over again, creating a cycle of degradation, humiliation, and dysfunction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter.
As opposed to personalities and prejudices, which are better criteria?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter.
As opposed to personalities and prejudices, which are better criteria?
Yeah. Or no. Maybe.
I guess I'm suggesting that, counterintuitively, people would make better political decisions if they didn't pay (and feel it was their civic duty to pay) as much attention to politics. It's not that decisions should be made based on prejudices, or personality, or whatever; it's that the focus on 'a well-informed public' forces people to spend more time watching politicians and pundits, which creates more space for manipulation and deceit.
Furthermore, there's ample evidence (summarized in books like Cass Sunstein's Going to Extremes) that promoting the ideological debate results in greater polarization of policy, parties, and the electorate at large. We'd have a more pragmatic, more moderate, more functional government if people spent less time focused on political debate and more time watching sports.
<edit>And, of course, I'm completely hypocritical about this because I'm more focused on politics than perhaps anyone in my close circle of acquaintances. I do think of it as a moral failing, though, and when people tell me they're paying less attention to politics than they did previously, I feel moral regret that I don't have the self-control to do so myself.</edit>
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Furthermore, there's ample evidence (summarized in books like Cass Sunstein's Going to Extremes) that promoting the ideological debate results in greater polarization of policy, parties, and the electorate at large.
Yeah, belief polarization definitely occurs and it's a huge problem.
quote:We'd have a more pragmatic, more moderate, more functional government if people spent less time focused on political debate and more time watching sports.
I don't think this follows, though. There's a certain well-documented negative effect of having lots of political debate and mixed evidence thrown up in front of people. But that doesn't tell us what the effects would be of not providing all that stuff.
Relatedly, the studies on belief polarization seem to point toward a way of combating it. The problem arises because people extensively scrutinize evidence that counts against their views (looking for holes) while giving evidence they agree with a free pass. It may be that if you keep this tendency of yours in mind, and focus yourself on trying to shoot holes in the reporting you're inclined to agree with, you can counteract the cognitive bias. I try really hard to do this myself, and sometimes it seems to work.
Not sure how one would promote a norm like that more broadly in political culture, though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I know a ton of guys who are great to play pool with or have a beer, but who I would dread seeing up for elected office at any level. Just because someone is likable doesn't mean they are honest, or intelligent, or organized.....
I'd rather debate issues than decide who is more likable. I had enough of popularity contests in K-12.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Relatedly, the studies on belief polarization seem to point toward a way of combating it. The problem arises because people extensively scrutinize evidence that counts against their views (looking for holes) while giving evidence they agree with a free pass. It may be that if you keep this tendency of yours in mind, and focus yourself on trying to shoot holes in the reporting you're inclined to agree with, you can counteract the cognitive bias. I try really hard to do this myself, and sometimes it seems to work.
Not sure how one would promote a norm like that more broadly in political culture, though.
This is one of the big themes in "You are Not as Smart as You Think You Are" which was an interesting, if slightly overly cute, book. It's affected my thinking as well, which is why I now sometimes add caveats like "that might just be my partisan bias" when I'm talking about divisive subjects. I don't know that I've been very successful, though, in actualy combatting the bias; even when I recognize that it's probably affecting my analysis, it doesn't seem to lead me to "see things with new eyes" or anything.
I agree that it's not a given that de-emphasizing the rational debate would lead to increased moderation and decreased dysfunction; but I believe it would. I think there are other things we can do that would help with this, though, like encourage more social interaction, a la Robert Putnam. In his book "Faith and Politics", Jack Danforth (former US Senator and Episcopalian minister) talks about the moderating effect of the weekly 'prayer breakfasts' attended by Senators from both parties. I think similar activities at all levels would lead to an increase in tolerance and a decrease of polarization.
Finally, I think I went a bit astray with my alliteration when I said we should judge on personality and prejudice (or popularity, which I didn't say, but which would have fit). I should have said something more like, "rather than voting based on a reasoned analysis of the isues, we should vote based on which candidate we believe intuitively would make the better President." That's not quite the same as a popularity contest; it's relying on your 'fast thinking' or 'thin slicing' mind rather than your 'slow thinking' or 'thick slicing' mind.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I agree that it's not a given that de-emphasizing the rational debate would lead to increased moderation and decreased dysfunction; but I believe it would.
You don't think it would just open up different, potentially even easier methods for powerful entities to exploit the system for their own benefit? That would be my main worry.
quote:I think there are other things we can do that would help with this, though, like encourage more social interaction, a la Robert Putnam. In his book "Faith and Politics", Jack Danforth (former US Senator and Episcopalian minister) talks about the moderating effect of the weekly 'prayer breakfasts' attended by Senators from both parties. I think similar activities at all levels would lead to an increase in tolerance and a decrease of polarization.
That's a good thought. It's possible that part of what's underlying our present-day polarization is the diminished amount of shared culture between left- and right-wing folks. It's no longer as easy or pleasant for typical Republicans to hang out with typical Democrats, even in a setting where politics doesn't come up. I find this even with relatives and old friends, which make up most of the Republicans I spend much time with IRL.
But people aren't as polarized, ideologically, as they take themselves to be. Almost no one really believes there should be no social safety net, for example. But people will parrot statements that sound an awful lot like "There should be no safety net," as a part of identifying with Republican culture (this is also why so many people claim to be birthers).
Anyway, if we all hung out more I could see that opening people's eyes to some of the common ground that actually exists.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
On the other part, I guess I don't trust the fast-thinking mind any more than the slow-thinking mind. It will have "exploits" available too, and I feel like they'll probably be easier for the bad guys to home in on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Anyway, if we all hung out more I could see that opening people's eyes to some of the common ground that actually exists.
Life these days has me working in finance in a company whose employees collectively make up one of Romney's top five (disclosed) donor groups. It should be easy to find a way to work out some common ground with them.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.
All the personal testimonials from common people who have been helped by Mitt Romney--some really emotional, impressive stuff--surely should give the Obama propagandists pause before they launch any more negative attack ads trying to depict Romney as uncaring about people. The testimonials about how Romney and Bain Capital saved their company and saved thousands of jobs, should make it suicide for the Obama campaign to try to demonize Bain Capital any more. It is beginning to look like Romney is one of the most truly good men who have ever run for president. But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on? They certainly can't run on Obama's record. But since the word is out about the truth of Romney's actual generosity and compassion, such tactics can only blow up in their faces.
Commentators on NBC and CBS as well as FNC could only complain that the Romney campaign had not put forward these testimonials earlier.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.
Not that I don't understand how an old man rambling awkwardly at an imaginary Obama resonates with you, but I have to do a double-take. I am not lacking in conservative exposure and you're pretty much the first person who hasn't described it as at least uncomfortable to watch.
quote:But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on?
Assuming the Obama campaign for some reason decides to stop characterizing a vampire capitalist as a vampire capitalist, I could venture two guesses:
1. His tendency to switch positions at convenience to the point where he seems a total phony, and
2. His status as a complete and brazen liar.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.
All the personal testimonials from common people who have been helped by Mitt Romney--some really emotional, impressive stuff--surely should give the Obama propagandists pause before they launch any more negative attack ads trying to depict Romney as uncaring about people. The testimonials about how Romney and Bain Capital saved their company and saved thousands of jobs, should make it suicide for the Obama campaign to try to demonize Bain Capital any more. It is beginning to look like Romney is one of the most truly good men who have ever run for president. But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on? They certainly can't run on Obama's record. But since the word is out about the truth of Romney's actual generosity and compassion, such tactics can only blow up in their faces. .
The word is out is it? Lol. Yes, in the sense that the words were said in public, notwithstanding how fundamentally deceptive they are, and how untrue so much of what Romney has said is, yes, "the word is out." You have a hole where something important is supposed to be, Ron.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.
I thought this was a pretty good joke, before I realized who wrote it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find an empty chair to talk to in front of an audience. If there are even a dozen other Ron Lamberts out there, I'll make millions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm surprised anybody enjoyed it. Romney's aides all seemes uniformly uncomfortable and antsy about Eastwood speaking improv.
Oh wells, Gran Torino was still an amazing flick.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh wells, Gran Torino was still an amazing flick.
I just like it because it was filmed in my home town.
As is the upcoming Red Dawn remake!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I may keep some of my left-over Vicodin on hand as I watch the Democratic National Convention, in case I need something to calm me and ease the painful angst. I will try to keep reminding myself of something I have especially learned in this forum--it is a great, truly great honor to be called dishonest and a liar and be outrageously misrepresented by some people.
I genuinely expect to be entertained by Biden. I hope the TV cameras pick up some of the winces on the faces of various party dignitaries as Biden gaffiates.
I wonder what Obama will say about his record. Will he even mention it? And what party dignitaries will want to be so closely associated with Obama that they speak at the convention praising him? It seems to me that for the past several years, Democratic candidates have been studiously distancing themselves from the loser at the top of their ticket.
I think--and the parallels probably are not lost on many Democrat politicos--that Obama may well go down to even worse defeat than Jimmy Carter did to Ronald Reagan. Coming out of the conventions in 1980, Reagan was down in the polls by double digits--but wound up defeating Carter by a large margin. Going into the convention, Romney was even with or slightly ahead of Obama in the polls. The question is, will Romney do as well as Reagan did in the debates? And into how many pieces will Ryan chew up Biden in their debate(s)?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron, are you even reading this thread or are you just mostly stopping by and copypasting crap you wrote for multiple venues? You're certainly not participating in anything resembling "dialogue," you're just stopping in, hitting ctrl+v with disconnected stuff you've written, and moving on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think--and the parallels probably are not lost on many Democrat politicos--that Obama may well go down to even worse defeat than Jimmy Carter did to Ronald Reagan.
I just want to put this out there, so someone who cares can eventually add this one to the running total.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I will tell you plainly that I suspect Sarah Palin could very well prove to be the next Margaret Thatcher. And my answer to every carping cavil of you sniveling liberals, is watch and see.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By 2012, Palin may well be the de facto head of the Republican Party. No one will be able to claim she is not politically savy then.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] If Palin is the person I think she is--smart, decisive, willing to go against corruption even in her own party to clean things up, a natural competitor, and increasingly politically savvy, then this will become undeniably apparent as we approach 2012. YOU. WILL. SEE.
Just like you will see what the dire consequences to the nation will be for voting for a socialist fascist leftwing extremist for president. Many of us saw through the propaganda, and knew better. We feel more and more vindicated every day.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a lot of young independent voters, but he is too extreme a liberal to win in the general election. America always shuns extremes.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Isn't this the way the "Hitler Youth" began? Sounded idealistic to begin with.
I have compared Obama to Hitler, and I still believe the parallels I have drawn are valid. But the troubles and open racial warfare that I predict will not come so much from Obama as from his zealot, hardcore worshippers, who will become wildly enraged at anyone who criticizes their messianic hero--especially when so many things about his administration go frustratingly wrong, and they want to find a scapegoat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ohh! 'member when Ron told me I should die (and my sakes that was such a Christian thing to say!)? Hey, Ron, when you pop that bottle cap don't, you know, mistake them for jolly ranchers or anything and just enjoy the heaven out of them.
Because that would be unfortunate.
Anyway, first Romney was the most qualified in history to run for President (because, umm, Olympics-certainly not his governorship. Now he's the kindest person to run. What next? Best looking? Shall we hear about how Kennedy's liberalism made him physically ugly or something?
It sounds weird, I know, but aside from being a spineless liar you are of course also crazy, so who can say? Anyway, Tom already quoted it, but is there going to be any sort of consequence in terms of your own smug confidence in your prophesying ability if you're wrong? I realize paying attention to predictions when they're WRONG isn't really your thing, though...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: I'm OK with people believing somebody is lying and saying so. Don't accuse people of being insane. I was very put out (and I'm sorry to be saying this as BB not JB) when Ron said that to you. I was hoping we could tack away from that territory.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, that kind of prediction record would depress the hell out of me. Of course with our luck, it probably just reinforces a Christian persecution complex or something. ("I'm so persecuted, even 'reality' is against me")
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I note that Ron has not tacked away from that territory, nor is he likely to. But while I appreciate your saying so, I don't feel like I had an apology coming from you on saying or not saying anything on it. That sort of remark was entirely expected from Ron, wishing someone dead and doing it in a way that implies moral authority. I have little doubt he feels that way about quite a few people here, and would view all sorts of terrible misfortunes to be visited on us as signs of a just God, so that's why it didn't bother me except as something to laugh at.
I did mean what I said when I said he was crazy, not because of his religious beliefs which I obviously disagree with, or his politics about which he lies as a matter of course, but specifically because of his own confidence in his predictions. Multiple times on Hatrack over the years, his (give him credit) specific predictions have been shown to be wrong with no corresponding loss of confidence.
Obviously I can't say he's clinically insane, but that is simply to my mind nutty thinking: the specific, proud insistence on being right even when being specifically, factually shown to be wrong. It's fundamentally unhinged from reality. If he decided whether to cross a busy street on that style of thinking, he too would've gone to heaven years ago.
Having explained that, it it's really out of bounds to call someone nuts when by most normal standards they clearly are, I won't do so.
----
Now, as to the issue of 'don't call someone insane' and the issue of not (publicly) saying 'don't tell someone to die'...well. I can't know what was or wasn't said to Ron in private, but THAT apparent (to me, anyway) contradiction in chastisement is...frustrating. If it was addressed in private, I withdraw the that observation to you with apologies.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phillyn: Quote from Black Blade:
Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise. ------ As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.
I don't get that from Mitt at all. That is how I felt about McCain, but I believe Mitt has freely and willfully altered his programming without compunction. McCain was twitchy and uncomfortable every time he opened his mouth and something he didn't mean came out (during the 2008 election). Mitt opens his mouth and opinions that are the exact opposite of what he said when running for governor come out with the same tone and expression. If saying, "Murble-murble glorp" 185 times would win him votes, he would do it with the same conviction/expression on his face and never miss a beat.
He absolutely terrifies me. At this point it would take him conducting his side of debates from inside an FMRI machine with images if his brain on a 40ft flatscreen before I would believe a) anything he says or b)that he is not some variety of sociopath.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Phillyn: Quote from Black Blade:
Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise. ------ As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.
I don't get that from Mitt at all. That is how I felt about McCain, but I believe Mitt has freely and willfully altered his programming without compunction. McCain was twitchy and uncomfortable every time he opened his mouth and something he didn't mean came out (during the 2008 election). Mitt opens his mouth and opinions that are the exact opposite of what he said when running for governor come out with the same tone and expression. If saying, "Murble-murble glorp" 185 times would win him votes, he would do it with the same conviction/expression on his face and never miss a beat.
He absolutely terrifies me. At this point it would take him conducting his side of debates from inside an FMRI machine with images if his brain on a 40ft flatscreen before I would believe a) anything he says or b)that he is not some variety of sociopath.
You should work in television.
I think you have the next hit reality show on your hands.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Olivet: That essentially captures my feelings on both McCain and Romney pretty well. I think McCain is (or was) a moderate who had to pander; I think Romney is a man who doesn't really have any principles and just panders and lies by default.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My sense is that if left to his own devices, he probably would hew far more moderate than he's being pushed to be.
But as was joked about during the primaries, Romney is a perfectly lubricated weathervane. There's just no way of knowing who he'll listen to if he makes it to office.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The funny thing is, so much that is deeply troubling about Romney (kind of as though he were a distilled ambitious politician) can be summed up with two facts: elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, and successfully navigated a 21st century Republican presidential primary.
Those two facts, occurring in such proximity to one a other, just don't match up to a person whose beliefs have been well considered and committed to. Right there on the top of his political resume you've got a politician able to appear like a good choice to two radically different groups of people.
I think if you took away the one-term Obama presidency lust in the GOP, there's not a chance in hell it would've been Romney giving an acceptance speech this week, and if memory serves (but I could be misremembering), it took an enormous pile of money by primary standards to get him past a field of largely laughingstocks when it came to a general election.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah...but the GOP actually has far more electable candidates in the chute.
Huntsman would have crushed Obama. People like Christie and Rubio would have been far more dynamic, trustworthy candidates. Clearly beating Obama wasn't the most important thing, they had to beat him with their messiahs ideologically intact. It wasn't just money that got Romney ahead, though I agree that he never would have made it this far if not for a boatload of cash.
What's interesting going forward is that Obama's fundraising advantage is about to evaporate. Romney has been sitting on a mountain of cash he was unable to spend before the RNC. Now he'll unleash the flood gates on Obama, who has been burning through cash since June.
Obama's campaign made a bet that they could set the tone of the campaign early enough to seal that impression in people's minds. Polls seem to have that up, indicating that people's impressions of the candidates are pretty firmly entrenched, so maybe it was the right strategy. I think Romney will spend half a billion dollars on ads in September trying to change the narrative. Obama will be outspent, but he'll count on the debates as free advertising to shift the conversation again.
Either way, the dynamic should change after next week, even if only to get nastier.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some people, of course, are not worthy of being engaged with in serious conversation.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One network news commentator likened the present situation to the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter running for his second term, after making almost as bad a mess of the economy as Obama has presently. Reagan came out of the 1980 Republican National Convention down in the polls by double digits. But this changed dramatically, and in the general election Reagan defeated Carter (and his "misery index") by a large margin. Reagan's performance in the debates is credited by some with making the difference. (I think it was more the contrast of seeing the two together, that led many Americans to perceive Reagan as the one who was more presidential. His catchphrase helped too, where he replied to some silly Carter claim, "Now, there you go again....")
This year, coming out of the Republican National Convention, Romney is even with or in some polls ahead of Obama. Considering all the unanswerable ammunition Romney has against Obama and the great dissatisfaction many who voted for him in 2008 now have with his performance, and Romney's vastly superior intelligence and experience, he is likely to do as well in his debates with Obama as Reagan did against Carter. Obama will not be able to rely on his teleprompter in a live debate. Romney may actually win this election in a landslide.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Tea Party pretty much won the elections nationwide in 2010, and still is a growing force in the Republican Party--which is one of the reasons why Romney picked Paul Ryan to be his VP running mate. And Sarah Palin remains one of the brightest stars, most popular and most influential, of the Tea Party. Even the super-biased-to-the-left mainstream media cannot hide their fascination with her. They are still scared of her. I expect her to have an important post in the Romney administration. Or even if not so important, making her the Press Secretary would be a delicious irony for the liberal media to have to face her.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sure that's why she had such a prominent role in the convention... oh no wait she didn't.
That's the ticket! You hire a press secretary who shows open mocking hatred of the press, and whom members of the press despise and distrust! Actually, I agree, that's the kind of move I might expect from Romney as president. Ill considered and deeply stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some people, of course, are not worthy of being engaged with in serious conversation.
The people who raise multiple fundamental objections to your claims which you repeatedly fail to answer, and the people who call you on your routine lies and nonsensical statements being not worth 'serious conversation'.
Yes, Ron, we know. You like to lie and then ignore calls to substantiate. You don't need to point it out-your reputation for spineless dishonesty is famous around here.
You're right about Palin, though. Man, she is a political juggernaut. Seeing Russia from her window and not reading magazines and killing McCain's bid for president.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, driving a losing campaign into the ground while aggrandizing herself to a base that she didn't need to consolidate anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, once you sift through all the weaseling lies, Ron does serve a useful purpose: a look inside the bizarre mind of someone for whom a Republican primary election serves as a glimpse at 'America'. Someone sufficiently closed minded enough to think America is 'me and people like me' (and definitely not dark skinned people with funny names), and smug enough to be impervious to all factual challenges to how stupid that worldview is.
Now that Romney doesn't have to pretend to admire the Tea Party, now that in fact it would be harmful for him to do so (since out in the rest of America, it is incredibly disliked)...well somehow that adds up to MORE Palin. Even though he wouldn't cozy up with her in the primaries. Yeah.
Anyone who points out how irrational that is isn't worthy of serious conversation.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I find that, so long as there are political threads for Ron to spew hilariously ridiculous unmitigated crap in, I barely miss having cable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so we know Romney is the most intelligent, most qualified, most exporiented, most virtuous candidate ever to run for President of the United States in this and any parallel universes, except the ones where America is bad since Mitt would then be the heroic resistance leader.
My question is, what else is Mitt the best at? Best cook? Best tailor? Best ballroom dancer?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Best Hair too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Best Robot.
He narrowly beat out Data and Caprica Six.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, Six was awfully emotional whether it helped or not. And Data had all that stuff about consistent ethics and honesty. So he would beat Six easily, but not Data unless you meant robot to mean robotic qualities and not robotic decency.
Best Tour Guide of his many home states.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know, Six was awfully emotional whether it helped or not. And Data had all that stuff about consistent ethics and honesty. So he would beat Six easily, but not Data unless you meant robot to mean robotic qualities and not robotic decency.
Best Tour Guide of his many home states.
Best Republican Robot.
We all know Johnny 5 was the best robot ever, but he was an immigrant.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Johnny Five was built in the USA.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure but he was a naturalized citizen. Plus they outsourced his caretaking to an Indian.
Actually, Republicans might like that part. Plus he was originally a military robot, so they'd like that too.
We might have a real horse race on our hands here.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Johnny Five was built in the USA.
True, but he wast a naturalized citizen. But as we all saw at the end of Short Circuit 2, Johnny 5 needed to pass a citizenship exam along with Ben. The need to get citizenship makes him an immigrant.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Best Robot.
He narrowly beat out Data and Caprica Six.
Only because Caprica Six helped engineer an interplanetary genocide. She passed the Turing Test much more convincingly. Romney just barely squeaks by.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I was surprised when no one else in this forum had started a thread about the Republican National Convention the day after it closed. Maybe it's my journalistic background, but I felt an obligation to start such a thread.
Is anyone here going to start a thread about the Democratic National Convention? Or is everyone else so apathetic and politically brain dead that they don't want to be bothered? I can see why most of the left buffalo wings here would not be terribly enthused about Obama any more. He has had the worst presidency in history. And so far he has mounted the most unconvincing, blatantly dishonest, and mean-spirited campaign in history, where they have gone so far as to accuse Romney of being a murderer and a felon. (I don't remember the details of the felon charge, but as for the murderer charge, it was an Obama bundler who closed the steel plant that caused the man to lose his health insurance so his wife died three years later of cancer--after Bain capital had tried to save that steel plant.)
C'mon, surely someone here will start a thread on the Democratic National Convention after it begins or at least as soon as it ends. Start one before it begins, if you want. If I have to start it, you know I will have a lot of negative comments about the convention.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If I have to start it, you know I will have a lot of negative comments about the convention.
Oh noes!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: We already have two threads, one for Republican Primary News, and the other for Democratic News. You could of used one of them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, can we get another Ron Lambert lie on record by getting you to clarify that if someone does start such a thread (and without your prideful poking, I wouldn't think such a thing unlikely anyway), you won't have negative comments?
Anyway, not only is Romney the best in categories conceivable and inconceivable it seems, now Obama is the worst! Wow.
I especially liked the part where he betrayed America with Obamacare, pissing on the Founding Fathers and apple pie, not at all like Romney did when he was governor. Totally different.
I think my favorite thing about Romney is how clearly written the label is. He's got big plans, by God, and they're complicated to deal with complicated problems. His consistency is top-notch, too. He consistently says, "I'll go into that later, maybe," when asked about his taxes and the economy!
Oh, that reminds me. Remember how you posed a false equivalency between Romney's taxed and Obama's transcripts, and Rabbit demonstrated how fundamentally ignorant you were again and thus, once more, what a tedious liar? I sure do, it was neat!
Seriously, though, one of my actual favorite parts of the convention was even among the die-hard party faithful, they were only able to muster up...what, a line? Two? In regards to SSM, with a few head fakes here and there.
That was neat. Are you ready for that, Ron? 'That' being America continuing its ongoing acceptance of SSM, along with an ongoing not bursting into flames or being devoured by earthquake ghost zombies? Along with the GOP's matching gradual (and this is the part I know you, a spineless liar, will appreciate) abandonment of this supposedly vital issue as it proves more and more politically untenable?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am pretty amused that someone could honestly convince themselves that obama's is the worst presidency ever. Ron, care to explain why Obama is having a worse presidency than, say, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, what do you know about Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore? I am surprised you did not mention Grover Cleveland.
Has Obama delivered on any of his promises? Has he given America hope? Has he given America any real change? Has he given you any hope? What he has done is run up the biggest debt in American history. The current national debt (by the time of the DNC) will be 16 trillion dollars. That is $16,000,000,000,000! Link: http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
That is far more of a debt than George W. Bush ran up, so Obama can't blame that on Bush.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. The president creates the debt? The president is racking up more debt at a higher rate than the last president under a plan he would have if ideally congress would let him?
2. Obamacare isn't 'real change?' I'm confused as to whether or not it is a radical terrible change or not a change at all. It can't be both so please let me know if I'm supposed to be afraid of Obamacare's radical change, or if I am supposed to dismiss him as having not accomplished anything.
3. I know plenty about Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore. Cleveland, as well. Grant, Johnson, and Harding especially. I don't really know why you mention Cleveland since I wouldn't put him in a dismal presidential category. Nearly nobody at all with any historical understanding does. But that's irrelevant; I asked you if you could explain why Obama is having a worse presidency than Buchanan, Pierce, and Fillmore and you haven't answered the question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've got to admit, Obama did an impressive job ratcheting up that debt with no help from anyone else, completely by himself, as a President of a system which has for decades viewed that sort of thing as ordinary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have to say that, yes, Obama has given me hope. And change. He has not given me as much as I would have liked, partly because he has not pursued initiatives I would have prioritized and partly because some of those initiatives he did pursue that I liked best were stymied by opponents who were not in favor of that sort of change.
I would like more hope and change. I do not believe this (namely, greater hope for the future and change in a positive direction) will happen in an America with Romney as president.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, it's more than just being a liar. He routinely, when called to substantiate what turn out almost invariably to be proven lies or gross exaggerrations, to resort to personal attacks.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
Yeah, it would be terrible to have anyone on this forum with an entrenched political ideology that they stubbornly defend with assertions instead of arguments.
Luckily Ron Lambert is the only person here like that! Just get the moderator to take action against him and everything will be keen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Defend with assertions instead of arguments is one thing. Routinely make plainly worded statements of supposed fact, be proven wrong, and then outright saying on more than one occasion that detractors hate America, are lazy or stupid, or themselves dishonest for having the audacity to actually examine his pronouncements is quite another.
...or we could just pretend there's some sort of equivalence. I suppose that's progress, of a sort.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm not pretending there's equivalence.
First of all, because I think there are leftist posters on Hatrack that are notably worse than Ron when posting on political issues. So, not equivalent.
Second (and most important) of all, because I'm much more concerned with the idea that such people ought to be in some way moderated to remove their offensive ideas from our bubble.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That you phrase it that way just demonstrates that you're missing the point. His ideas, however often stupid and offensive they are, are welcome. And yeah, I don't feel any reluctance saying that to the guy who told me to die and believes most of us will justly be tortured forever in He'll.
What's not welcome is the bald-faced habit of lying, compounded by personal insult when called on it. I don't know how familiar you are with Ron's history around here. Seems another case of a relative newcomer seeing someone being scorned and concluding that it must be unjustified.
But anyway, I'd love to hear which leftist posters behave 'notably worse' than Ron on politics. You clearly have an idea, but if you're reluctant to name names, by all means which political issues then? Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
So I'd love to hear who or what issues are worse than that. I am highly skeptical that you can offer anything like that.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Second (and most important) of all, because I'm much more concerned with the idea that such people ought to be in some way moderated to remove their offensive ideas from our bubble.
You are silly if you think the problem is his ideas, or that this forum doesn't moderate to remove offensive ideas already.
But if you would like to go find a nonworrisome forum that doesn't moderate offensive ideas I would like to see how well that works out.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That you phrase it that way just demonstrates that you're missing the point. His ideas, however often stupid and offensive they are, are welcome. And yeah, I don't feel any reluctance saying that to the guy who told me to die and believes most of us will justly be tortured forever in He'll.
What's not welcome is the bald-faced habit of lying, compounded by personal insult when called on it. I don't know how familiar you are with Ron's history around here. Seems another case of a relative newcomer seeing someone being scorned and concluding that it must be unjustified.
But anyway, I'd love to hear which leftist posters behave 'notably worse' than Ron on politics. You clearly have an idea, but if you're reluctant to name names, by all means which political issues then? Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
So I'd love to hear who or what issues are worse than that. I am highly skeptical that you can offer anything like that.
I honestly can't think of any way to answer this question without effectively naming names (mentioning the issues would, I think, be too obvious). And you're right that I'd rather not do that.
But you're also right that I may be underestimating Ron. I haven't paid as much attention to him as you have, for certain.
So, I think we'll have to leave it there, unless you have any other suggestions. Not trying to be evasive, I just can't think of any way I'm comfortable proceeding.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
When he stops believing the things he's posting.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I find myself curious, BlackBlade. At what point does Ron stop being a liar and annoying to most of the board (well, most of the board that responds to him, anyway) and move into the realm of "troll"?
When he stops believing the things he's posting.
Yup.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
That is far more of a debt than George W. Bush ran up, so Obama can't blame that on Bush.
Why not? The level of debt is almost *entirely* due to spending commitments and revenue shortfalls made by George W. Bush- commitments and shortfalls Obama was powerless to erase. Everyone knew that would happen in the 2000s, when Bush was running up the debt, and spending money like a drunken sailor- but you Republicans just didn't care.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No no, they cared-later. Now even many Republicans are unhappy with Dubya's spending, and I guess it's just handy that that unhappiness coincides with an election with which we need to elevate a politician to rein in the spending. Strange that it's simultaneous with a Democratic incumbent, though. One might almost think that the Republican base and establishment are, as a whole, fundamentally unprincipled or something.
As for Ron, sure, he believes what he says, I think. I didn't realize belief in the things he says and the way he says them was such a good defense against consequence, but as it turns out it's pretty good.
------
Dan,
*snort* Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here. Also your point that Ron elicits such hostility because of his ideas of themselves, and not anything else.
Wait, a second...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If Ron is representative of even a tiny fraction of people in this country, I'm honestly scared shitless about our immediate future.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Politicized evangelicals, not as a group as bad as Ron's blatant dishonesty and irrationality, are still a powerful force in Republican primaries and have been for at least a generation now. One of my long-term hopes is that, if Obama wins, the rest of the GOP, the part that like most Americans doesn't pay attention to primaries, realizes that the control their base is exercising is hurting their chances, and deals with it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:As for Ron, sure, he believes what he says, I think. I didn't realize belief in the things he says and the way he says them was such a good defense against consequence, but as it turns out it's pretty good.
That is not what I said. I was asked what would put him over the edge into troll territory, and I responded.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So the definition of a troll is inherently bound up in what they believe, and not how they behave?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think BlackBlade is saying that Ron isn't a troll because he's ignorant and delusional, instead of dishonest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So the definition of a troll is inherently bound up in what they believe, and not how they behave?
No, one could be like steve and believe Hatrack should be destroyed, and actively try to bring the forum down by instigating arguments, and irking people all by only saying things they might really believe.
In Ron's particular case, if I believed that he, even in part, disbelieved the things he was saying, I would treat him like a troll.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
I thought the last four years *were* the double down.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is not what I said. I was asked what would put him over the edge into troll territory, and I responded.
To clarify: I didn't mean it served as a defense against accusations of being a troll. I don't think he is one, for the reasons you describe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're probably right, Lyrhawn. I hope for what I described, but don't expect it. I don't think losing the election would be enough in any event, because they can still point to Congressional and state government wins.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lots of people are predicting that the GOP go into the philosophical wilderness if they lose.
I think they'll double down and spend four more years demonizing Obama. If they've proven anything in the last four years, it's that they care far more about simply winning than they do governing, and that ideological heresy is punished most severely.
I thought the last four years *were* the double down.
No, the last four years were the first part of an experiment.
The premise of course being something you're well familiar with: If we grind the gears of government to a halt, can we then blame Obama for not doing anything and then win an election based on that?
That's a new strategy. This will be the first presidential election based on that strategy. If they lose despite that strategy, will they rethink it, or double down?
I think they'll double down and we'll have four more years of relative gridlock on new legislation.
----
And I'll add, if Romney wins, and especially if he captures the Senate...I think the Democrats need to filibuster EVERYTHING that passes their desks.
And I don't mean that because I don't want GOP policy made into law (although I don't). But if that strategy actually works, and then Democrats roll over, they'll prove that it's highly effective, and all they have to do is throw a tantrum every time a Dem wins in order to get power back.
The only way to discredit the strategy is either to beat them at the polls or shove it right back in their faces to show it's the political version of MAD.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is, I think that however justified that would be, Democrats lack the guts and organization to implement such a strategy and make it stick. It's a hell of a lot easier to peel off Democrats from the edges than it is Republicans, and Republicans are also more likely to be able to sell people given their cohesion that the Democrats would be playing unfairly.
I hate this. It used to be, for me at least, that I was a registered Independent and I actually DID swing to one side or the other, particularly on social issues and foreign policy. But it's rare that I find an opportunity to do that anymore.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know. Part of it will depend on how Romney plays it and tries to work with them.
But if they try to run roughshod over the Dems, Harry Reid has shown a surprising backbone this past year. Between that and anonymous holds, they might be able to at least halt the big stuff, the stuff that really matters, big ticket items.
I think even for Democrats, the situation has changed from where it was a few years ago, and dramatically different from how the Dems acted during the Bush years.
I've never had to register for a party. I find the idea pretty abhorrent, and if forced to, I'd either register Independent every time, or find some way to protest.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan,
*snort* Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here. Also your point that Ron elicits such hostility because of his ideas of themselves, and not anything else.
Wait, a second...
What? No it's not. I freely admitted that I wasn't willing to make my case, and conceded. You won, man. Are you just incapable of accepting the high ground, or what? What's bringing on this spate of smarmy jackassery?
Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure. Your case is well made for Ron being better than some unnamed 'leftists' around here.
I want to find the unnamed leftists which say you are an evil pawn of satan for contradicting them enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What? No it's not. I freely admitted that I wasn't willing to make my case, and conceded. You won, man. Are you just incapable of accepting the high ground, or what? What's bringing on this spate of smarmy jackassery?
Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
What brought it on was the suggestion that not only is there equivalence, but that Ron isn't the worst and is in fact better than unnamed 'leftists' on unnamed issues. It made me pretty pissy, in fact, given how Ron has actually behaved.
This might simply be because, as you said, you're not aware of the things I'm talking about. It certainly appears to be the case, since you refer repeatedly to 'bad ideas' and 'imperviousness'. That's not the problem.
I'm not talking about being unwilling to admit one is wrong on a question of politics or opinion-I'm talking about making factual statements (his grandmother says he was born in Kenya, Democrats will never support spending cuts, records from Obama's college days aren't available and that's unusual) and then even when proven-and I don't use that word often around here-proven wrong, insists he is right and then insults the honesty, patriotism, and fundamental decency of the people who gave him the lie.
Those are all things he's done, in some cases just in the past week. Perhaps you aren't aware of them. If that's the case, maybe say that instead of saying that not only is Ron not that bad, but there are leftists around here that are worse. It's not a question of thinking his ideas are bad, though I do. I think plenty of ideas are bad, and don't make a habit (nor do others around here) of calling their proponents liars.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Elephant in the room that Dan doesn't want to mention is probably BB who does make a habit of flipping out and swearing at opponents. Speaking for myself, Ron's delusions are at least highly entertaining and preferable to Blayne's uncreative swearing.
I hardly blame anyone for not wanting to proceed into that quagmire of a discussion either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Reality called, something about how you missed the part of those exchanges of where I'm usually goaded into it by admitted trolls. The most consistent commentary over at Sakeriver is usually along the lines how until I lose control I generally possess the moral highground, I doubt Ron has similar people out in the wood work here or at Sakeriver who can claim the same.
Also those exchanges being regarding the left-right political spectrum has been virtually never so again it would not be an accurate comparison and I'm deeply insulted that you would think it remotely fitting.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, I appreciate your effort, it just doesn't feel the same Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Reality called, something about how you missed the part of those exchanges of where I'm usually goaded into it by admitted trolls.
*sigh*
What is actually happening is that you are behaving callously towards people who challenge your facts in the first place in a route that usually leads towards you even losing a moral middle-ground. People on Sake are patiently calling you out on your shenanigans too, buddy. I've watched.
the VAST MAJORITY of the posters here really sincerely want you to change your ways for the better, myself included, but grow more and more tired of the unwarranted dismissal and unwarranted disdain that reliably — for years — comes when people take you up on your interpretation of one of several sacred cows. I don't like it enough that I will bring up that Quagmire Of A Discussion rather than just letting you continue your old habits out of attrition and the frustrated silence of others. But you reliably just dismiss it and find a way to tell yourself (and others) that it's not really your fault, it's someone else's fault for goading you into it or being an 'admitted troll' (95% of the time at least the people you accuse of trolling are not).
And one way or another it's why you're always going to hate me, but there you go.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
When several threads now have been consistently derailed by your one man crusade to browbeat me into "changing my ways" it satisfies a reasonable standard of "he who stares into the abyss sees the abyss stare back at you" and you've blinked.
When you decide to treat me with some more respect you'll see that surprise surprise, I don't feel like I'm being pushed into a corner.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sakeriver is usually along the lines how until I lose control I generally possess the moral highground
:giggle:
You know, that forum is accessible to all of us right? This is... well it's disingenuous.
You can ask them yourself, if you like, but my suspicion is that the people at Sake would say that the primary reason why they might enjoy interacting with you is because your own behavior there allows them to. You should be proud- there are people out there who like you and care about you, and it is because of the way you act- because you respect those people and treat them with respect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I don't know, it's in the ballpark, which seems to more accurately be 'people would agree with you more if you didn't make it so easy to disagree by flipping out'. Another common theme would be that the prodding would probably drop sharply if the amusing hysterical reaction weren't so predictable. But there IS also the notion (fair one, at that) that people take less overt shots at him precisely to draw that response.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't know, it's in the ballpark, which seems to more accurately be 'people would agree with you more if you didn't make it so easy to disagree by flipping out'. Another common theme would be that the prodding would probably drop sharply if the amusing hysterical reaction weren't so predictable. But there IS also the notion (fair one, at that) that people take less overt shots at him precisely to draw that response.
Slow and steady steps, the march of 10,000 li begins with a single step, and then another one after that. The Long March wasn't done in a day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Elephant in the room that Dan doesn't want to mention is probably BB who does make a habit of flipping out and swearing at opponents...
Bwuh!?
And then I realized Mucus wasn't talking about me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Your foul mouth does make me uncomfortable at times.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Firefly has taught me Chinese has the most creative swearing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Slow and steady steps, the march of 10,000 li begins with a single step, and then another one after that. The Long March wasn't done in a day.
This would be more compelling if there wasn't a clearly marked Short Jog path immediately to the left.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Because I'm remembering the most well known case with Ron lately, that of the Birther lying. He claimed it had been proven Obama was born in Kenya based on what he claimed was said by Obama's grandmother. When this was looked at in detail here on Hatrack, this was proven as it has been elsewhere to be flat-out wrong.
Not only did he never admit he was wrong, he stuck to the claim in the face of contrary factual evidence and also outright stated what lazy, stupid Americans people were who didn't agree.
Just wanted to jump in and back you up here. If anything, your description is too generous to Ron. Essentially, he said that when he watched a video he posted, he saw something that didn't actually appear in the video. When everyone else who was party to the conversation pointed out to him that he was wrong about what was on the screen, he held his ground and began tossing around accusations.
I wouldn't even really call it "lying." It's not lying if you point at a blue ball and stubbornly declare that it's red. It was more like a tantrum where a child keeps saying "No!" to something he knows is true.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Besides, it occurs to me that even if I did name names, it wouldn't really prove anything. The best I could probably hope to wring from you would be an admission of not-quite-equivalence (i.e. "yeah that person is stubborn and wrong but not at the level of Ron"). Because I'm pretty sure the depth to which we consider such intransigence and imperviousness to argument a serious failing is directly proportional to how off-base we consider the wrong person in question to be.
Otherwise I'm pretty sure you'd have already thought of some of the topics I'm refraining from mentioning.
What brought it on was the suggestion that not only is there equivalence, but that Ron isn't the worst and is in fact better than unnamed 'leftists' on unnamed issues. It made me pretty pissy, in fact, given how Ron has actually behaved.
This might simply be because, as you said, you're not aware of the things I'm talking about. It certainly appears to be the case, since you refer repeatedly to 'bad ideas' and 'imperviousness'. That's not the problem.
You say that his being impervious to argument isn't the issue, but then just below here you describe the issue as...
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not talking about being unwilling to admit one is wrong on a question of politics or opinion-I'm talking about making factual statements (his grandmother says he was born in Kenya, Democrats will never support spending cuts, records from Obama's college days aren't available and that's unusual) and then even when proven-and I don't use that word often around here-proven wrong, insists he is right and then insults the honesty, patriotism, and fundamental decency of the people who gave him the lie.
i.e. He makes a statement, someone provides a successful refutation (an argument!) and he refuses to see it. That seems like a textbook example of someone who is "impervious to argument" as I put it. But it's an uncommon turn of phrase so maybe I was misunderstood.
I still stand by my position that other people here have exhibited similar (or worse, to my eyes) examples of willful disregard for basic facts that contradict their worldview. And I'm still not really willing to commit to naming names, so I recognize that this position is meaningless for you.
Sorry! I'm not trying to be annoying, I just can't think of any way to do it that I'd be comfortable with.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Those are all things he's done, in some cases just in the past week. Perhaps you aren't aware of them. If that's the case, maybe say that instead of saying that not only is Ron not that bad, but there are leftists around here that are worse. It's not a question of thinking his ideas are bad, though I do. I think plenty of ideas are bad, and don't make a habit (nor do others around here) of calling their proponents liars.
To be clear, you put some words in my mouth here: I didn't say Ron was "not that bad." I only said that others were worse, and that I disagreed with the idea that we ought to censure him via moderator. Important distinctions, those are. At least in my view.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: If Ron is representative of even a tiny fraction of people in this country, I'm honestly scared shitless about our immediate future.
AMEN
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:i.e. He makes a statement, someone provides a successful refutation (an argument!) and he refuses to see it. That seems like a textbook example of someone who is "impervious to argument" as I put it.
I'm not sure you've got the right understanding of what happened in the discussion. It made quite an impression on me, because I've never seen anything like it. Here's what happened:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Obama's grandmother isn't on screen while they're playing the clip, so it's not even clear that she's actually the one speaking. I tried looking this up and couldn't find any printed record of any conversation where Sarah Obama is reported to have said anything about Barack being born in Kenya, besides the discredited phone conversation.
This leads me to believe that the video is very possibly fabricated.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I did back up what I said by providing a link to a video you could watch and hear for yourself when Obama's grandmother said "Barack nate dhalani."
No, you can't. You can hear a voice saying it. There's no actual point at which you can 'watch and hear' her saying that for yourself. As you've had pointed out to you already.
I would even bet you don't actually have a video where you can watch her saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your "point" is silly, Sam. That is the primary reason I seldom bother to answer you. Almost everything you say is unutterably silly. And you are also wrong (as usual, too). There is a point about 2/3 through the video where you can see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for the hissy fit some of you threw over Obama's grandmother saying he was born in her village, I did provide you with a link to a video of her saying that.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Just to be clear, Ron, your contention at that time was that in this video you see Sarah Obama on the screen speaking at the same time you hear the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani."
Do you stand by that? Can you point out how many minutes and seconds into the video you see that happen?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Destineer: Yes. Did you not view the video for yourself?
So. What we see isn't Ron being impervious to argument. He's being impervious to the evidence of his own eyes. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.
Destineer has the right of it. Being impervious to argument is one thing. Being impervious to *fact*-and I mean literal fact, not just 'really obvious compelling argument'-is quite another. It isn't an argument to say 'those words don't appear in that video', it's a statement that is simply either true or false.
It's not just an argument to say 'you cannot find such and such from Obama's college days online', it's a statement that is either true or false-it's a question of fact. If it turns out that it WAS online, then the person was just flat-out wrong. If they persist in claiming they were right, then they're lying.
Now, again, perhaps you didn't know about these things. Plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't (though less for why they would then claim some handle on what sort of poster the guy is). But Destineer has provided a pretty thorough example now, so I'll ask again: do you *still* claim the issue is that Ron is 'impervious to argument'? Because it's simply not-the issue is repetitive lying on questions of fact, and the reactions when he is called on it.
That is what made me so irritable from the start of this segue. Your huge understatement (hopefully due to lack of information) followed by 'there are leftists who are worse' (you know, secret leftists on unnamed issues). The larger equivalence argument on a micro scale.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: When several threads now have been consistently derailed by your one man crusade to browbeat me into "changing my ways" it satisfies a reasonable standard of "he who stares into the abyss sees the abyss stare back at you" and you've blinked.
When you decide to treat me with some more respect you'll see that surprise surprise, I don't feel like I'm being pushed into a corner.
This doesn't make sense, are you the abyss?
And why don't you hold yourself to the same standard?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Someone get the thread where Ron was arguing with his own source about Yellowcake in Iraq.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If they persist in claiming they were right, then they're lying.
Or they're a lunatic. Or Jesus.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Someone get the thread where Ron was arguing with his own source about Yellowcake in Iraq.
That one was particularly surreal. He wanted to say that the invasion of Iraq was justified by us finding uranium in a facility which the UN actually controlled since the early 90s... Meaning it hadn't been in Sadaam's control, and we knew that.
Sort of like us invading Germany because of the military operations being conducted on Rammstein base...Or maybe trying to retake okinawa.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Thread is credit to team
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not exactly the right thread, but I couldn't find a better one. At CPAC there was a panel called "Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?"
Well, to put it lightly, it didn't exactly work.
My favorite part was a young white man standing up and talking about how he felt that young white men from the South were being disenfranchised systematically, and that loving Southern culture was "anathema". He then goes on to disagree with the panelist's suggestion of "Fredrick Douglas Republican" as a counter to being called racist, and says, "Why not a Booker T Washington Republican?"
The panelist responds, and then, this happens. O.o
Alexandra Petri has a hilarious editorial on it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I love it when Republicans, lately, say they don't have an issues problem, they have a messaging problem. Then you have Romney saying that they lost because they never got the message out to minorities.
Yet every time they try to get the message out that they're not really racist and they actually care about minorities, it always blows up in their faces, and they never seem to understand what bothers people about it. It only proves that it's not about bad messaging, they really just don't get why people are even upset with them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it boils down to a lot of conservatives come at it the wrong way.
If the message was, "We will never defend what we did, and we are sorry." And that was just said over and over, the stigma would go away.
But instead it's,
"Well, white males are an oppressed minority too."
"Why don't people just get over it already? Racism isn't a problem anymore."
"Blacks actually had it better as slaves than they would have had it in Africa."
"Why can't we have whites only clubs, like all the minorities do?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god that video
yes tea party keep telling me you don't have a massive idiot racist problem, keep telling me
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think it boils down to a lot of conservatives come at it the wrong way.
Eh, I think that's a part of it-because man, do they ever-but I don't think it quite boils down to it. Who can really say, but I think much of this is what is likely to be exhibited a couple of generations past legal, overt systematic racism. Not just legal but legally required in some cases.
You can hardly be a white southerner and not feel at least a whiff of embarrassment over what happened over centuries, because so often the message is *also* 'kids, ours is a proud and honorable heritage, freedom, American Revolution, Bill of Rights, etc.' So despite what many would and do claim, we can't just disavow the bad stuff and say 'that was never me, I never did any of it' because deep down we all remember many times in school, in movies, in books, at family reunions, when we're told of all of the things we should be proud of...before we were born.
Except there's a lot of truth, too, in the 'that was never me' defense. And thinking about embarrassing stuff is awkward-then it's easy to pivot to 'it's not a problem anymore, why are we talking about this?'
I suspect that's true of many Americans in general and conservatives in particular...but then you've got the 'disenfranchised white people' jackasses, and all of the people who didn't find some way of saying, "Excuse me, but that is deeply stupid."
Anyway. Hey, just keep on going for that increasing share of a shrinking market, conservatives. Even a concerted effort at nationwide gerrymandering won't protect you forever.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's also the whole thing where the Southern Strategy coupled with the GOP losing control of the primary process has resulted in a situation where even if the GOP wanted to transform in a way similar to the 1980's Democrats they can't because anyone who does will get primaried.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
sarah palin, now reduced to a sort of a semi-comedy act but still, much to my complete delight, part of the 2013 cpac, has gotten in a barb-trading feud with karl rove
my sinister mocking laugh cup runneth over
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Balding? Your hair is gone, Mr. Rove. You're bald. No -ing about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
just
i just want to make sure everyone's on the same page here
quote:The session, entitled “Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?” was led by K. Carl Smith, a black conservative who mostly urged attendees to deflect racism charges by calling themselves “Frederick Douglass Republicans.”
Disruptions began when he started accusing Democrats of still being the party of the Confederacy — a common talking point on the right.
“I don’t care how much the KKK improved,” he said. “I’m not going to join the KKK. The Democratic Party founded the KKK.”
Lines like that drew shouts of praise from some attendees and murmurs of disapproval from one non-conservative black attendee, Kim Brown, a radio host and producer with Voice of Russia, a broadcasting service of the Russian government.
But then questions and answers began. And things went off the rails.
Scott Terry of North Carolina, accompanied by a Confederate-flag-clad attendee, Matthew Heimbach, rose to say he took offense to the event’s take on slavery. (Heimbach founded the White Students Union at Towson University and is described as a “white nationalist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)
“It seems to be that you’re reaching out to voters at the expense of young white Southern males,” Terry said, adding he “came to love my people and culture” who were “being systematically disenfranchised.”
Smith responded that Douglass forgave his slavemaster.
“For giving him shelter? And food?” Terry said.
At this point the event devolved into a mess of shouting. Organizers calmed things down by asking everyone to “take the debate outside after the presentation.”
Brown, who took offense at the suggestion modern Democrats were descendants of the KKK, tried to ask a question later once things finally calmed down. She was booed and screamed at by audience members.
“Let someone else speak!” one attendee in Revolutionary War garb shouted.
“You’re not welcome!” a white-haired older woman yelled.
Eventually she asked a question. It was about whether Republicans should call out racist ads.
Attendees interviewed by TPM afterwards expressed outrage at the way the event turned out. Not at Terry and Heimbach — they were mad at Brown.
Chad Chapman, 21, one of the few black attendees, said overall he enjoyed the event — except “there were lots of interruptions, mainly because of the woman.”
I asked whether he was concerned about the question from Terry and Heimbach.
“No they were just telling the truth,” he said. You mean you agree blacks are systematically disenfranchising whites, I asked?
“I listen to anybody’s point of view, it doesn’t really matter,” he said.
A media scrum formed around Terry immediately after the close of the event. A woman wearing a Tea Party Patriots CPAC credential who had shouted down Brown earlier urged him not to give his name to the press.
She wouldn’t give her name either, but I asked her what she thought.
“Look, you know there’s no doubt the white males are getting really beat up right now, it’s unfair,” she said. “I agree with that. My husband’s one of them. But I don’t think there’s a clear understanding about what really is going on. He needs to read Frederick Douglass and I think that question should be asked to everyone in this room who is debating.”
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As long as the Republican party is courting the religious vote, they're going to be racist. It's a sad, well-established fact that religious people, especially conservative religious people, are significantly more racist and prejudiced than the general population.
---
edit: I stated that poorly. What I meant to have said is that religious people tend to be significantly more racist and prejudiced than the general population.
[ March 19, 2013, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Ha, memories of Barack nate dhalani.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: I don't buy that for a second, but I am willing to read why you think so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pretty much every study of religious and prejudice that I'm aware of, back from the very start of the study of prejudice, displays this correlation between religiosity and prejudice/racism. Pick your (reputable) source and it's almost definitely going to show this. Here's a recent survey of a large chunk of these studies (well, it's actually an article describing it, but the abstract is available from there).
This is not a case of me thinking so. The data here is well-established and pretty unequivocal.
edit: I've discussed this at some length at least twice on Hatrack. You could also look those up for a more detailed examination of why I think so.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I'd imagine any organization that promotes close-knit, us vs the world thinking would have higher rates of xenophobia.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
It's a well established fact that people on Hatrack are significantly more prejudiced against religious and conservatives than the general population.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Even I think that's false.
Anyways I think its more to do with if your older and white, hence your more likely to be either religious and or racist.
Young republicans who support racist policies are either racist or exceedingly dumb and stupid. I remember talking to one online, about 18 years old who felt that the only reason why blacks voted democrat was because of welfare bribery.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Pretty much every study of religious and prejudice that I'm aware of, back from the very start of the study of prejudice, displays this correlation between religiosity and prejudice/racism. Pick your (reputable) source and it's almost definitely going to show this. Here's a recent survey of a large chunk of these studies (well, it's actually an article describing it, but the abstract is available from there).
From your article,
quote:“So perhaps it’s no surprise that the strongly religious people in our research, who were mostly white Christians, discriminated against others who were different from them — blacks and minorities.”
Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
If you are interested, there is an explosive paper that discusses how problematic using the US to extrapolate data on just about anything is. I think they compare it to using penguins as a model for all bird like behavior.
quote:Wood speculated that racist tendencies would not be limited to one religion: “All religions offer a moral group identity, and so across world religions — including Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Judaism and Christianity — the religious ingroup is valued over outgroups.”
Her speculations are as useful as any other, that is not at all.
Seems like a classic case of correlation != causation. China and Japan both rank very low in religiosity, but from what I have experienced (which is admittedly weak evidence) they both have serious issues with racism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
Except we're talking about who the Republicans are courting so it seems like a US-exclusive sample of people that predominate the Republican base is a pretty good place to start.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Um, yeah. No prizes for recognizing the problems with having a sample of where your religious people are predominantly white American Christians from which you draw conclusions about religion in general.
Except we're talking about who the Republicans are courting so it seems like a US-exclusive sample of people that predominate the Republican base is a pretty good place to start.
I'm not trying to argue against at present White Christians in the US tend to be racist. But the idea that religiosity means increased racism because the White Christians in the US tend to swing that way is ludicrous.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not trying to argue against at present White Christians in the US tend to be racist. But the idea that religiosity means increased racism because the White Christians in the US tend to swing that way is ludicrous.
It's not ludicrous if it supports your world view. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I'm having problems understanding your point. We're talking about the American Republican party. I said that they are going to remain racist for as long as they continue to court religious voters and then showed that religious in America have significant problems with racism and have for as long as we've been studying it.
From what I gather, you are faulting this because I only provided data on America (incidentally, there is plenty of evidence from Europe which also agrees with this). I'm having problems seeing that as a logical objection, unless you think I'm failing to consider a point where the American Republican party is trying to court votes from people outside of America.
Looking at it, I think maybe you're reading a broader statement that I intended. I'm talking about in the U.S., religious people (and this is pretty consistent across race) have consistently shown to tend to be more racist than non-religious people. I thought the "in the U.S." was implied, but it looks like maybe you're were reading it as a more global proclamation.
--- edit: You may also want to consider I gave you one reference that was a summary of a survey article. I don't believe that it makes sense to assume from this that 1) this is the only thing known about the link between religion and prejudice and 2) that is the only thing I know about religion and prejudice, especially as I've already discussed this at length here and literally told you that there are a lot more studies out there on this.
[ March 19, 2013, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky:
quote:I'm having problems understanding your point. We're talking about the American Republican party. I said that they are going to remain racist for as long as they continue to court religious voters and then showed that religious in America have significant problems with racism and have for as long as we've been studying it.
I understand the point you were trying to make better. I initially read it as,
1: Republicans are courting the religious vote, and have for a long time.
2: Because religious people also trend racist, they (the Republican Party) are going to inevitably have a racism problem.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
American Conservatives: Not Racist, But Number One With Racists
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as the cpac goes on, the tea party keeps doing their adorable thing:
All else aside, I'm really, really curious to see whether or not the GOP, particularly the conservative factions of that party, will continue to assert as much control over the larger party or whether they'll be pushed aside before they bring the whole thing down with them.
On a more grim note, I also wonder a lot how much the answer to that question depends literally on how long a few thousand people or so live. The conservative wing of the GOP is older, whiter, and more male than the US as a whole by a substantial margin, and while that larger trend will be a slow, predictable process of changing I wonder what happens as people in leadership positions of that group begin to grow too old to maintain an active political role? Does the pressure of demographics then, without them, hasten the larger change or what?
As much as I'm deeply (as in, extremely) unhappy with the way this small minority exerts as much control over the entire nation as it does-and rails against perceived minority special interests while doing so-it's still an interesting trend.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
On a more grim note, I also wonder a lot how much the answer to that question depends literally on how long a few thousand people or so live. The conservative wing of the GOP is older, whiter, and more male than the US as a whole by a substantial margin, and while that larger trend will be a slow, predictable process of changing I wonder what happens as people in leadership positions of that group begin to grow too old to maintain an active political role? Does the pressure of demographics then, without them, hasten the larger change or what?
You shouldn't think of it in a sense of say, some leaves growing old and falling off the tree. More like an artery narrowing over time.
Most organizations live long enough to preside over their own obscurity. Just look at the Catholic church. Once a political powerhouse, it is now little more than a tax-shelter (politically speaking- I make no statement about the church's stated aims).
There will always (in the foreseeable future) be *enough* old rich white men to replace the numbers of old rich white men who currently run the Republican party. There will even be more of them. But the point is, they will be crowded out by others, and more of the whole population will fall away from their movement when it becomes clear that they can't be as influential as they were.
Just think- there *are* actually more republicans now than there were a hundred years ago. But only because there is a bigger population. Demographics is not about people disappearing, it's about the base growing wide, and making the majority less major (not smaller).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My friend keeps trying to make the point that the only thing the GOP needs to do to win other the youth vote is drop social conservatism and be pro-internet freedom.
I point out that his is impossible without ending having anyone who attempts to drop social conservatism from being primaried by the social conservative crowd and that the problems are too systemic to be solve by changing platform planks (that can't be realistically changed anyways) and that a realignment would date a couple of decades.
Apparently because I base this on what's happening now (Christie not being invited to CPAC, self reflection determining the problem is "messaging" not actual policies, etc), that the Arab Spring would not have happened based on "what was happening then"... Oi...
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I listened to a guy call into a radio show who said, "We've given the Demon-crats a chance to work with us. All they had to do is agree with us and it would have been perfectly bipartisan."
Same thing--suggesting that all the Republicans have to do to win is stop being Republican is not helping anyone.
However, I think they need a new strategy. I think they need to rebrand the RINO name. The Tea Party folks started using RINO as "Republican in Name Only" to classify Moderates as not conservative enough to be a True Republican.
I believe the Republicans need to call out the real RINOs.
If you are a Libertarian, you are a Libertarian not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are a racist, and hope to find other racists to back your failed philosophy you are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you dream of a Christian Theocracy before the return of Christ, where only your version of a True Christians matter, and only your ideals of True Christian Thoughts define all law, you are a Theocrat, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
This does not mean that to be a Republican you must surrender your faith, your property, your freedoms, or your success. Republicans accept and promote Christian morality, Libertarian philosophy, Capitalist success, and the Patriotic love of country and our history.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well I do believe the solution is for the Republicans to collapse so the adverture window can shift American politics back to the left instead of this center-right neoliberal Washington COnsensus hellhole it currently is.
Once democrats no longer have to shift rightwards to build bipartisan support they can listen to the progressive caucus again.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
????????
ROFL
No, dude, there really are only two types of REAL Republicans. The first type is the already-rich type. That's the first group in my quote of your post. The second group is the hoping-to-get-rich Republicans. Those are the second group in the quote.
Everybody else who calls themselves a Republican just THINKS the party is on their side. In reality, the GOP is about getting rich and staying rich. That's all, as far as I can tell, anyway.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If you want a government of the Wealthy, for the Wealthy and limited to protecting the privileges, perks, and status of only the wealthy--you are an Oligarch. You are not a Republican. You are a RINO.
If you are greedy, and want to make money at all costs, not caring about the damage done to others, but only for the profit and power you can grab, you are a crook, not a Republican. You are a RINO.
????????
ROFL
No, dude, there really are only two types of REAL Republicans. The first type is the already-rich type. That's the first group in my quote of your post. The second group is the hoping-to-get-rich Republicans. Those are the second group in the quote.
Everybody else who calls themselves a Republican just THINKS the party is on their side. In reality, the GOP is about getting rich and staying rich. That's all, as far as I can tell, anyway.
False dichotomy *and* confirmation bias. Nice.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Some people enjoy being the tied up and beaten person in S and M.
Some low income people enjoy being Republicans.
It takes all sorts, my nan used to say.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Some people enjoy being the tied up and beaten person in S and M.
Some low income people enjoy being Republicans.
It takes all sorts, my nan used to say.
Yeah, principles, how ridiculous and incomprehensible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Note to forestall "why are you saying leftists have no princples?"... I'm not. I'm of the opinion that a great many on both sides hold their views because of their principles.
My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
By the way, the inverse is true for the other side, of course. High-income Democrats vote that way because they think it's immoral not to redistribute wealth, even if they will end up losing more in that scenario. Of course, they commonly get lauded for selflessness, while low-income Republicans get mocked for being so stupid that they vote against their own "interests."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I would love to see what fantastic legislation was drafted because we're holding the administrations feet to the fire on Operation Fast and Furious as well as Benghazi. I mean, I'm sure we got something good because that's where Rep. Kelly's attention turned to.
Wait what? Nothing? Nothing at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's almost as though House Republicans have made a career and a political platform out of shouting at Obama and derailing anything which might be politically good for him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Note to forestall "why are you saying leftists have no princples?"... I'm not. I'm of the opinion that a great many on both sides hold their views because of their principles.
My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
By the way, the inverse is true for the other side, of course. High-income Democrats vote that way because they think it's immoral not to redistribute wealth, even if they will end up losing more in that scenario. Of course, they commonly get lauded for selflessness, while low-income Republicans get mocked for being so stupid that they vote against their own "interests."
The voting against their interest line is for when low income earners are taught by the right wing media to vote against programs like the Affordable Care Act, or vote to dismantle Social Security because of lies and misinformation. Such as "Social Security is bankrupt" and "death panels" and so on.
For example SS reform and privatization that "protects seniors" means insuring that the next generation won't benefit for it, misinformation campaign by the GOP has made it endemic to the discourse that sometime soon the current 20-30 somethings will not see any SS payments, so they vote against SS and thus against their interests because of Republican misinformation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
Just to be clear, are you saying that low-income Republicans vote against such programs out of ideological/moral opposition more, less, or about as much as enlightened self interest informed by the belief that such programs are actually bad for the country and wouldn't help them anyway?
Because if so, there's an odd short circuit somewhere. The conservative/Republican ideal goes something like this: government programs (such as those we're alluding to) are inefficient and wasteful from the outset, being managed by faraway state and federal government; they take your wealth and redistribute it, when if left in your hands and those of your neighbors would be better spent to the benefit of all; finally, many of these programs are disguises for other less desirable government efforts such as socialism, communism, death panels, and the government making health care decisions for you.
I think with some potential shifting of emphasis, you and I would agree that's what the party line is, right Dan? Given that, how much of a moral position is it, exactly, to oppose such government efforts? It's not as though they believe 'our lives would be better if we took these programs', or is it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution.
That's just the thing, though. If they vote for republicans because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, they fail both their interests and their principles.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Some people enjoy being the tied up and beaten person in S and M.
Some low income people enjoy being Republicans.
It takes all sorts, my nan used to say.
Yeah, principles, how ridiculous and incomprehensible.
Enlightened pragmatism beats principles every time. Principles are for people testing a theory. Enlightened pragmatism is for people who realize that the fate of the largest economy in the world is too important to be risked by people testing principles.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:My point here is just that I find it supremely stupid when someone makes the "voting against their interests" argument. Low-income Republicans vote that way because they think it's immoral to redistribute wealth, even if they would be a beneficiary of such redistribution. Mocking them for this is like mocking someone for choosing not to rob someone when doing so would have been easy.
Just to be clear, are you saying that low-income Republicans vote against such programs out of ideological/moral opposition more, less, or about as much as enlightened self interest informed by the belief that such programs are actually bad for the country and wouldn't help them anyway?
Because if so, there's an odd short circuit somewhere. The conservative/Republican ideal goes something like this: government programs (such as those we're alluding to) are inefficient and wasteful from the outset, being managed by faraway state and federal government; they take your wealth and redistribute it, when if left in your hands and those of your neighbors would be better spent to the benefit of all; finally, many of these programs are disguises for other less desirable government efforts such as socialism, communism, death panels, and the government making health care decisions for you.
I think with some potential shifting of emphasis, you and I would agree that's what the party line is, right Dan? Given that, how much of a moral position is it, exactly, to oppose such government efforts? It's not as though they believe 'our lives would be better if we took these programs', or is it?
Well, no, because they wouldn't be better!
But that's essentially an aside to what I'm saying. Let me back up. I'll start with an assertion: Many people who vote Republican do so because they think that taking money from one person against their will and spending it on someone else is immoral.
Do you think my assertion is true or false? Note: I'm not asking if you think what they believe is true or false. I don't care for the purposes of this discussion.
Also note: It's irrelevant if they have different definitions of what counts as "spending money on someone else," too. One guy can think that only explicit transfer payments count, and other government services are fine. Another guy can think that any government service which isn't specifically set up to benefit everyone equally (i.e. anything but emergency services, courts, military) counts.
Doesn't matter for our purposes. There can be nuanced differences of opinion, because "Republican" is a huge tent. All that matters is that they think forced redistribution is immoral. Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Doesn't matter for our purposes. There can be nuanced differences of opinion, because "Republican" is a huge tent. All that matters is that they think forced redistribution is immoral. Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
It looks to me like you're conflating Libertarian and Republican to such a degree that you're missing the point as to why Romney lost, and why Republicans are having a harder and harder time getting elected, or even being listened to (by anyone who won't be dead of old age in 10 years).
Without social liberals, rich, old, racist white men are going to have a harder and harder time getting elected, and a harder time getting legislation favorable to their desires. You can throw Libertarians and Republicans under the same tent all you want...but they're never going to coexist well. It's a generation gap, as much as anything else.
The GOP has been famous for managing to get its many constituencies to all vote together on election day. However, the Libertarian/social-conservative split, along with larger and larger numbers of minorities that are actually voting, look like they may just destroy the GOP in its current form.
I'm not arguing, I'm just observing. You can't win elections without votes, and you're not going to get young people and minorities to vote for the Mitt Romneys of the world. Dude, when the GOP is running a Mormon former-Massachusett-governor as their POTUS candidate, they're already getting pretty damn desperate.
The political landscape is changing. A brother from Chicago, middle name Hussein, is sitting in the White House. Do you think things aren't changing? Please.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
I think you mean "cynical sound-bite-ready justification, applied for the purpose of rallying fools and silencing opponents."
Yeah, I said it. It is what it is.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Do you think this is a common principle held by Republicans?
I think it's a common principle, but as you point out it's not consistently applied. (i.e. it's used as justification for positions that it is consistent with, but ignored for other positions)
From that perspective it's not actually a principle so much as a rationalization.
I think they typically have arguments for why the inconsistencies make sense. I think those arguments are wrong, but not wrong prima facie. I'd have to go through it with an individual to see why his arguments are wrong. Ultimately, whether or not they're fully consistent is not what's at issue here.
They aren't rationalizations instead of principles. They're rationalizations for principles. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If your principles need rationalizations, you might have something other than a principle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you think my assertion is true or false? Note: I'm not asking if you think what they believe is true or false. I don't care for the purposes of this discussion.
I actually do think this is false, or at least incomplete. It isn't the case that Republicans and/or conservatives feel it's immoral, full-stop. It seems to me that what is at least a competitive strong motive as well is the conviction 'it does't work, and the value gained by the exercise will be short of the value lost to it'.
quote:Also note: It's irrelevant if they have different definitions of what counts as "spending money on someone else," too. One guy can think that only explicit transfer payments count, and other government services are fine. Another guy can think that any government service which isn't specifically set up to benefit everyone equally (i.e. anything but emergency services, courts, military) counts.
Eh, I'm not so sure they're irrelevant at all-because generally the reason Republicans and/or conservatives support the 'taking from one to spend on another' when they do support it is because they believe 'this actually works in society and we're all better for it'. The thing which justifies that support, from that outlook, is the belief that it will or will potentially be used.
I suppose one of my fundamental points here is to say that support for capitalism is one of the pillars of conservatives and Republicans, in which 'enlightened self-interest' is supposed to be key. Which is fine, by the way, I'm not criticizing that as immoral-I'm just pointing out that your praise or at least description of this as a stance taken for moral reasons is probably too...rosy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Taxation aka "forced redistribution" is not theft. This is one of those things... Oh yes, "misinformation" and "lies" that Republicans use to shift the conversation on emotional appeal.
The constitution grants Congress those powers, it is not theft.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'll start with an assertion: Many people who vote Republican do so because they think that taking money from one person against their will and spending it on someone else is immoral.
Do you think my assertion is true or false?
This is completely false.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, maybe not false in the sense of "many people." Like out of all republicans you might find a handful that actually believe this. But is it going to be a quantity significant to republicans? No. It will be a scant fraction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well if you read his statement very literally outside of the context of this discussion, I agree. I don't think that's quite what he meant, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, in the sense it seems to have been intended the answer is "no that is not true at all"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* I disagree. I interpreted Dan to be saying 'Republicans tend to oppose 'redistribution' taxation because they feel it is immoral to take from one to give to another'-he can clarify, and perhaps should to avoid confusion.
I don't disagree that many Republicans do actually believe that this is immoral-I just think the opposition has another major element to it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* I disagree. I interpreted Dan to be saying 'Republicans tend to oppose 'redistribution' taxation because they feel it is immoral to take from one to give to another'-he can clarify, and perhaps should to avoid confusion.
I don't disagree that many Republicans do actually believe that this is immoral-I just think the opposition has another major element to it.
Yeah, you understood me correctly.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just pointing out that your praise or at least description of this as a stance taken for moral reasons is probably too...rosy.
I'm curious where you got praise from what I was saying.
Insofar as most Republicans and Democrats think that they have good principles and try to live consistently with those principles, I suppose I have a little bit of praise for both of them. But... only a little. Because many of their principles are bad and they fail to apply them consistently.
Mostly, though, I just have contempt for people who think that not having principles is somehow a sign of superiority (Hi, Tittles).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Democrats also have economic facts in that their policies have led to lower unemployment, higher standard of living, greater education and higher economic growth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even openly liberal/Democratic leaning economics (which is somewhat an imprecise way to describe economists as openly allied with a party, rather than allied to ideas that party might like) would hesitate to use the word 'fact' as recklessly as you are, Blayne.
Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Doesn't any capitalist, at the very least, believe in an abstract line where re-distribution of wealth crosses from being a good thing to being exessive--and then doesn't that mean, than any low income capitalist, has a principle that conflicts with his or her (immediate) self-interests?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Not really. I mean, an extreme example would be... lots of Nazis thought they were doing the good, moral thing, and they were standing by their principles.
Noticing that someone is taking a position due to principles is, first and foremost, just an observation.
Now, neither Republicans nor Democrats are anything close to Nazis, of course. It was just an easy illustration of what I wanted to say. I hope you get what I mean.
Anyway, the whole start of this was just that Tittles (and more broadly the "voting against their interests" line) basically expressed disdain at the entire idea of someone voting based on their principles instead of their immediate situation or whim or whatever. I think that's stupid.
And I think that is typically only reserved for Republicans. Maybe that's just what I'm looking for, but it seems less common to see someone criticize Democrats for voting against their interests.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even openly liberal/Democratic leaning economics (which is somewhat an imprecise way to describe economists as openly allied with a party, rather than allied to ideas that party might like) would hesitate to use the word 'fact' as recklessly as you are, Blayne.
Dan, well you seemed to have been saying 'they're doing this because they believe it is the moral (that is to say, good) thing to do.' That's not praise?
Democrats have traditionally been state capitalistic, using government intervention through the medium of capitalism, markets, and corporations, to fulfil policy of acquiring a more egalitarian society. They are not socialist by any means but the point is pragmatism as to what achieved the goals of "growth" and also "equality".
Republicans as of the last 30ish years, since Reagan anyways, have been about deregulation, pillaging the wealth of the nation, "trickle down", low taxes, favouring the rich and other "job creators" and increasingly desiring to 'starve the beast' and drown the government.
Point is, what country have the republicans built?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They hi-jacked the delegation, changed their vote, and disenfranchised thousands of us that spent a Saturday morning going to the caucus. They flooded the state convention and had 20 people chosen as delegates, but promised that they would cast votes for Romney because they were bound to, they simply wanted to go to promote Ron Paul. They lied. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)