View Full Version : 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Since the Repub primary appears to be over(ish), and the Dems are (naturally) running their sitting Prez, I guess it's time to start a general election thread. Only seven months to go!
Hmm. I'd better post something in here, or be accused of not really starting a thread. Okay, ladies and gents, I give you quantum physics election humor! No, don't thank me, it's all in a day's work.
A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html)
The basic concepts behind this model are:.
Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.
Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.
Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”
Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.
Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the cause of being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.
Duality. Many conservatives believe the existence of Mitt Romney allows for the possibility of the spontaneous creation of an “anti-Romney” (Fig. 2) that leaps into existence and annihilates Mitt Romney. (However, the science behind this is somewhat suspect, as it is financed by Rick Santorum, for whom science itself is suspect.)
What does all this bode for the general election? By this point it won’t surprise you to learn the answer is, “We don’t know.” Because according to the latest theories, the “Mitt Romney” who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, each being compared to a different beloved children’s toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse
I hate Obama.
I really hate Romney.
Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.
Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.
You have NO idea how seriously close I've been to doing just that the past 2 elections.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-02-2012, 18:44
I really looking forward to seeing Dems vs Republicans head to head instead of the stuff we've been having.
I hope Romney isn't as dumb about foreign policy as he's seemed so far. I'm inclined to think that judging presidents by economy of social issues is silly when the biggest screw ups come from foreign policy...maybe I'm biased by recent history.
Only seven months to go!
That thought is really depressing.
Kralizec
04-02-2012, 21:36
I hate Obama.
I really hate Romney.
Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.
The USA needs a leader who will balance the budget. Mickey Mouse is wrong for America.
Scrooge McDuck 2012!
a completely inoffensive name
04-02-2012, 23:09
Feel like this thread should be closed until the GOP convention is over. The subject matter isn't all that different than in the GOP thread and as long as Santorum and Gingrich want to stay in the game and be a distraction for Romney, not much is going to develop in the Romney v. Obama fight.
Papewaio
04-03-2012, 09:35
So I guess the cat is out of the bag on this one. :drummer:
So any chance that an independent could run for the POTUS?
Kralizec
04-03-2012, 10:25
I'm pretty sure there are independents running in every presidential election. Of course, they're all hopeless.
I'm pretty sure there are independents running in every presidential election. Of course, they're all hopeless.
Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.
CountArach
04-03-2012, 13:02
Feel like this thread should be closed until the GOP convention is over. The subject matter isn't all that different than in the GOP thread and as long as Santorum and Gingrich want to stay in the game and be a distraction for Romney, not much is going to develop in the Romney v. Obama fight.
I think we can just amalgamate it all into this one thread, it is what we did last election from memory. Romney's campaign will probably swing into general election mode pretty soon anyway.
Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.
Perot would disagree with you.
Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.
This attitude is one of the core reasons the government and political situation in America is so broken. Very few things in this world are black or white, left or right, A or B.
This attitude is one of the core reasons the government and political situation in America is so broken. Very few things in this world are black or white, left or right, A or B.
No, it's a very reasonable attitude. An indie party springs out, fields a presidential candidate and expects to win. Hell no. I say, they have to earn their right to compete with the big boys. Win a town. Win a city. Win a state. Win a region. Prove to the people that you're better than the competition, only then you'll be taken as a serious candidate. Indies want all the benefits without doing any work. It doesn't work like that.
NI say, they have to earn their right to compete with the big boys. Win a town. Win a city. Win a state. Win a region.
Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...
Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...
Historically, yes. Doesn't mean that there can't be room for a viable third party in today's climate. Independents such as myself have been yearning for a centrist party for the past eight years or so. Doesn't mean I'll back any schnuck who proclaims himself as a new centrist party candidate. First he has to prove his viability to me.
gaelic cowboy
04-03-2012, 14:26
Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...
Sometimes political parties fail/implode because people/society move on really suddenly and they have no time to adapt there positions.
The Irish parlimentary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Parliamentary_Party#Decisive_election) effectively dissolved overnight due to Britains FPTP system for elections and the emergence of a party that had a new empahsis.
The word empahsis is the key here as Sinn Fein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sinn_F%C3%A9in) before before that time were a party who supported freedom for Ireland under the concept of Dual Monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_monarchy) they sensed the mood and profited the rest is history as they say.
The IPP vote was still there though and it along with many members basically migrated to the new party that split from Sinn Fein over the Treaty. This party then became the first government of the new Free State.
Funnily enough it shows us that Sinn Fein hadnt learned there basic lesson that helped them before, of course looked at with the left or right eye I suppose you could say this doesnt disprove your idea though.
Also the crucialy Sinn Fein got help of a myraid of Socialist/Labour/Commie type parties who aggreed NOT to contest purely to help unseat the IPP an Unionist party members.
Crazed Rabbit
04-03-2012, 14:47
Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...
Well the two main parties do their best to hamstring any others with myriad election laws and regulations such that you practically have to hire a team of lawyers to run and finance a campaign.
But that's okay because they're doing it to reform campaign finance laws, honest!
CR
gaelic cowboy
04-03-2012, 14:56
Well the two main parties do their best to hamstring any others with myriad election laws and regulations such that you practically have to hire a team of lawyers to run and finance a campaign.
But that's okay because they're doing it to reform campaign finance laws, honest!
CR
Clever indeed
One of the biggest problem with third parties is that most of them run either to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans, i.e. they're more extreme than the establishment. We do not need more polarization, we need more centrism.
One of the biggest problem with third parties is that most of them run either to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans, i.e. they're more extreme than the establishment. We do not need more polarization, we need more centrism.
OK, perhaps I mis-interpreted your original comment that I responded to. You mentioned "throwing away votes" on "indies". My understanding and apparently that of others I discuss this with view the Libertarians as "indies". Hence, voting Libertarian is a "waste" as per your statement, if one accepts the definition of "anything not republican or democrat is 'indie'". Libertarian is arguably a viable, growing alternative to the current major two parties. Do you feel voting for their candidate would be a waste? Also, why do you think that voting for a candidate who is most closely aligned with your personal belief structures is "throwing away" your vote, irrespective of political party?
gaelic cowboy
04-03-2012, 15:32
Whats the situation at more local level though??
Do you have elected Green Party members for instance in state government?
I get the feeling people might vote Monster Raving Loony Party in there local council election or even at state level however when comes to selecting the new king you pick A or B
OK, perhaps I mis-interpreted your original comment that I responded to. You mentioned "throwing away votes" on "indies". My understanding and apparently that of others I discuss this with view the Libertarians as "indies". Hence, voting Libertarian is a "waste" as per your statement, if one accepts the definition of "anything not republican or democrat is 'indie'". Libertarian is arguably a viable, growing alternative to the current major two parties. Do you feel voting for their candidate would be a waste? Also, why do you think that voting for a candidate who is most closely aligned with your personal belief structures is "throwing away" your vote, irrespective of political party?
Currently in a presidential election the most an indie candidate can do is swing the victory from one major party candidate to another. The indie candidate himself has zero chance of victory. Even if my views happen to align with those of an indie candidate, I have to consider the practical outcome of my vote: if there's a bad democrat and worse republican on the ballot, and the indie will be syphoning votes from a bad democrat, then no, I will not vote for the indie. In that case voting for my choice of candidate will bring about a worse candidate than if I were to vote for lesser evil.
The problem with libertarians (since you've mentioned them) is that they're too extreme in their quest to dismantle the central government. That imho seriously limits their appeal. If they moderate their views a bit they'll find far more support and with time maybe will even become viable presidential contestants.
Whats the situation at more local level though??
Do you have elected Green Party members for instance in state government?
I get the feeling people might vote Monster Raving Loony Party in there local council election or even at state level however when comes to selecting the new king you pick A or B
On local and state level indies win quite often. States like Vermont for example even send socialist senators to Washington.
U.S President was always re-elected for a second "mandat" in the past (exception is rare : death or scandal ...) .
Who can think it could be different this year ?
Anyway , Obama wil be re-elected after the big circus of vote campaign .
U.S President was always re-elected for a second "mandat" in the past (exception is rare : death or scandal ...) .
Who can think it could be different this year ?
Anyway , Obama wil be re-elected after the big circus of vote campaign .
That's just not true. Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter are two recent examples of one term presidents.
a completely inoffensive name
04-03-2012, 18:40
That's just not true. Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter are two recent examples of one term presidents.
This is true, presidents are not safe from being one term, however it doesn't take much to secure that second term usually.
This is true, presidents are not safe from being one term, however it doesn't take much to secure that second term usually.
Incumbents generally have an easier time than challengers, nonetheless they are very much beatable, more so when things aren't going well with the economy.
ICantSpellDawg
04-04-2012, 00:49
Let's see if we can close this thing tonight. Santorum must win Wisconsin to stay in the race as a viable candidate. He's got a bunch of doozie States coming up
a completely inoffensive name
04-04-2012, 00:57
Let's see if we can close this thing tonight. Santorum must win Wisconsin to stay in the race as a viable candidate. He's got a bunch of doozie States coming up
It's already closed. Santorum is sticking in so he can justify being next in line for 2016. The RNC is going to revert the primary rules back to the 2008 guidelines because this years proportional delegations have made the GOP candidates look like fools. Whoever makes the biggest name for themselves is guaranteed to win the next primary. Just as McCain did for 2008 when he campaigned against Bush in 2000.
Captain Blackadder
04-04-2012, 01:10
All this talk of "wasting" votes to me could be solved by a preferential voting system? Any Americans have any reason why a preferential voting system would be a bad thing?
a completely inoffensive name
04-04-2012, 01:19
All this talk of "wasting" votes to me could be solved by a preferential voting system? Any Americans have any reason why a preferential voting system would be a bad thing?
Tradition. Those who pick the president are no longer the moderate swing voters but the extremists who vote for the Nazi, Communist, Green parties. If all their votes amounted to 1-3% of the voting population, then they would be effectively deciding the winner and thus would be catered to.
I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but I have heard them be made before.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-04-2012, 02:36
The only people I've heard complain about our system are those too extreme to find either party acceptable.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-04-2012, 05:19
Orly? If you disagree, you're extreme? That's your stance?
No. That's just how it's turned out so far.
I should add, also those who are die-hard cynics.
Papewaio
04-04-2012, 10:05
Preferential voting means no dead votes and influences the mandates of the big parties in Australia.
Say for US it meant you directly preferential vote for your candidate.
You could vote
Independent 1
Romney 2
Cain 3
Obama 4
Votes are totaled up. If no one has a majority the lowest scoring candidate gets removed.
Your favourite indie fails. Your preferential vote goes to #2.
Say at this point Romney wins. A lot of votes he gained were from the indie. Here in Aus the candidates adapt and will generally bring in a few of the ideas from candidates they gained votes from... Mainly to shore up their votes in the next election cycle.
Probably have a bigger impact on congress as it would mean voters would be more Willing to vote for long shots they agree with, and have the insurance that their vote will still count against a disliked candidate.
CountArach
04-04-2012, 13:50
It's already closed. Santorum is sticking in so he can justify being next in line for 2016. The RNC is going to revert the primary rules back to the 2008 guidelines because this years proportional delegations have made the GOP candidates look like fools. Whoever makes the biggest name for themselves is guaranteed to win the next primary. Just as McCain did for 2008 when he campaigned against Bush in 2000.
Making a less (d/D)emocratic voting system. How fitting.
Making a less (d/D)emocratic voting system. How fitting.
Party primaries do not have to be democratic at all. Heck, they should forego the whole process and just put the nomination up for sale to the highest bidder. The guy with the most cash tends to get nominated anyway.
A profile of the Santorum dead-enders (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/04/why-conservative-gop-voters-aren-t-giving-up-on-rick-santorum.html). I do not think, however, that they will stay home or vote Obama. Didn't happen with the PUMAs (http://www.watchfreeepisodes.com/party-unity-my-ass-puma-watch-online-as-hillary-clinton-supporters-make-fox-news/723/), won't happen with the Santorum-or-busters.
[D]espite the best efforts of the Republican establishment, many on the religious right are far from ready to accept Romney’s inevitability, or to coalesce behind him. They remain distrustful of his record on abortion, and unsure they can believe his campaign promises. And the harder party elites push Romney on them, the more alienated they become. “The biggest story that everyone in the media has missed this cycle is how frustrated and fed up the Republican Party base is with the Republican Party,” says Deace. “It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”
He’s not the only one seeing it. “I am a Republican, but I just see that this election is the final battle in a long struggle between social conservatives and what we call the establishment of the party for control,” says Jason Jones, an antiabortion activist and film producer who previously served as grassroots director for Sam Brownback’s presidential campaign. “This is the last time you will ever see someone like Mitt Romney even in contention for the nomination.”
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, agrees that there is profound grassroots discontent with party elites. “There is a lot of anger,” she says. “There is an enormous and palpable disconnect between Washington Republicans and conservative and independent voters on the ground. It’s just a chasm, and it doesn’t seem to get any better until Washington Republicans feel the pain.”-edit-
If anyone needed any evidence that the primary is well and truly over (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/romney-takes-the-lead-in-pennsylvania.html):
Mitt Romney's taken the lead in PPP's newest poll of Rick Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania. Romney has 42% to 37% for Santorum with Ron Paul at 9% and Newt Gingrich at 6%. The numbers represent a dramatic turnaround from when PPP polled the state a month ago. Romney's gained 17 points, going from 25% to 42%. Meanwhile Santorum's dropped 6 points from 43% to 37%, for an overall swing of 23 points in the last four weeks.
Pennsylvania Republicans are expressing major doubts about Santorum's viability both in the primary and the general election. Only 36% of GOP voters think Santorum has a realistic chance at the nomination to 54% who believe he does not. And when it comes to matching up against Barack Obama in the fall only 24% of Republicans think Santorum would provide their best chance for a victory while 49% think that designation belongs to Romney.
Santorum has cheezed off a lot of the Pennsylvania Republicans. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he loses there.
And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that. ~D
Santorum has cheezed off a lot of the Pennsylvania Republicans. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he loses there.
And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that. ~D
Except that they'll be back after Obama gets re-elected.
Except that they'll be back after Obama gets re-elected.
And they will complain again in 2016 when the "establishment" pushes a more electable candidate over the nutcases they want.
And they will complain again in 2016 when the "establishment" pushes a more electable candidate over the nutcases they want.
Makes me think that Romney will probably repeat McCain's mistake pick some darling of the far right as a veep. That's not his only problem of course, but it sure won't help him.
a completely inoffensive name
04-05-2012, 21:09
I have a feeling that Romney's defeat (if he loses) will bring about the end of the current GOP structure unless some brand new charismatic leader takes control after 2012. The strong conservative base is itching for a "real" conservative to be put out there, with their flames being fanned by talk radio and Fox News.
There are many possible leaders to arise for 2016 like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio. But by that point we might see a large rebellion by the more extremists in the party against all somewhat moderate candidates seemingly hand picked by the leadership. The last thing they would want after Obama's second term is someone like Hillary in charge and they would go nuts if someone like Romney came about again as the establishment candidate.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-05-2012, 23:01
Makes me think that Romney will probably repeat McCain's mistake pick some darling of the far right as a veep. That's not his only problem of course, but it sure won't help him.
Catch 22. If Romney doesn't pick such a veep nom, he loses grass roots workers and a sizeable slice of the GOP right wing stay home rather than vote.
As to the one-term/two-term We have had 15 presidents re-elected, 8 who failed to be re-elected, 1 who both failed and then succeeded, 1 un-elected incumbent who lost, 3 incumbents who withdrew from re-election for a second term or for their own second term, 3 who sought nomination while filling the term of a deceased predecessor but were not nominated, and 5 who died during their first terms. A two-term president is NOT an automatic option.
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2012, 00:22
And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that. ~D
Yes. Reagan was a great communicator of (largely Goldwater's) conservative ideology, but the religious element he ushered into the party that used to be content to vote for candidates who were outspoken in their personal religious beliefs are now increasingly and actively supporting candidates that seek to translate their personal religious beliefs into policy. It is eroding the support base for the party. We need to get back to Nixon.
There is no reason California should be off the table. There is nothing in the water in California that predisposes people to high taxes and big and dysfunctional government. The reason such places are no-go zones for the GOP now is because of cultural attitudes. The GOP is now the Christian party with some other tax positions in many people's minds instead of the small government party with a healthy respect for religion. That works well in places where religiosity is still strong, but it is a losing proposition in the long term. Nixon had no problem winning all across the country.
ICantSpellDawg
04-06-2012, 04:16
We need to get back to Nixon.
.
What? Nixon was Mr Big government. I get the basic idea. I think it's less of a big deal. We need to find the issues that play to a winning demographic that nets us the majority. If our numbers are dwindling, we can find voters with issues that are compatible with the basic message. Anything currently in the platform that shouldn't be we ditch. The GOP is just a party, it has no ideology but the ideology of its supporters and it just wants between 51 and 60 % of the vote. There are enough people that are dissafected by the current administration that tacking toward some of these issues in the general election and 4/8 years from now shouldn't be a problem.
Gay marriage. We don't have to embrace it, we just have to stop talking about it in the short term. Let it be a wash issue between the parties. Barack Obama is stuck in the muck on that one, too
We need to talk about our economy and scope of government, full stop. That's all this election should be about in the short term. GOP and Democrats are practically identical on foreign policy. The Republican abortion stance needs to stay strong, it is a winning argument and the demographics are for us. Drop the contraception nonsense and don't play the democrats game with that one. We got lucky with their creepiness about the conscience clause, but any further and it loses us votes. Push harder against government overt intrusion into our lives. Tear down the current DHS hydra but up intelligence gathering. Distance yourself from the drug war at the rate in which the voting codgers are dying off. That war is lost, immoral and a waste of taxpayers money. Cut spending, re-invest in technological advancement rather than salaries across the board (ie education, warfare, postal work)
Cut regulations in most areas and up it in boardroom representation. Push state level varied policy solutions and create a Federal mechanism that supports them. The list goes on and on, none of it includes new taxes or keeping the current tax status quo the same.
a completely inoffensive name
04-06-2012, 04:25
What? Nixon was Mr Big government. I get the basic idea. I think it's less of a big deal. We need to find the issues that play to a winning demographic that nets us the majority. If our numbers are dwindling, we can find voters with issues that are compatible with the basic message. Anything currently in the platform that shouldn't be we ditch. The GOP is just a party and it just wants between 50 and 60 % of the vote. There are enough people that are dissafected by the current administration that tacking toward some of these issues in the general election and 4/8 years from now shouldn't be a problem.
You are part of the religious base that is killing the GOP, so your opinion is really invalid here.
ICantSpellDawg
04-06-2012, 04:38
You are part of the religious base that is killing the GOP, so your opinion is really invalid here.
On no planet are my interests part of a "Religious base". I'm a Catholic, Steven Colbert is a Catholic, My mom is a Catholic, Andy Warhol was a Catholic. I'm fine with birth control and I don't want any theocracy creeping into government. My opposition to abortion is religious just like my opposition to murder and theft is Religious. It is also secular and civic, hence my secular and civic opposition to them. They just happen to match up on those issues.
You aren't even a Republican. Why don't you become part of the voting base and then actually have your say in the party?
a completely inoffensive name
04-06-2012, 04:51
On no planet are my interests part of a "Religious base". I'm a Catholic, Steven Colbert is a Catholic, My mom is a Catholic, Andy Warhol was a Catholic. I'm fine with birth control and I don't want any theocracy creeping into government. My opposition to abortion is religious just like my opposition to murder and theft is Religious. It is also secular and civic, hence my secular and civic opposition to them. They just happen to match up on those issues.
You aren't even a Republican. Why don't you become part of the voting base and then actually have your say in the party?
You mad bro? Cuz I would if I reallized my stances are laughable to middle america and are losing in the primaries.
You aren't even a Republican.
15 years from now, you won't be either.
ICantSpellDawg
04-06-2012, 05:08
You mad bro? Cuz I would if I reallized my stances are laughable to middle america and are losing in the primaries.
15 years from now, you won't be either.
Yes, I am mad because my candidate is winning the primary season and will carry most of the states that he lost recently in the fall. The Democrats and GOP go with the issues. The party itself is ever changing. These arn't interest based parties, they are empty suits, waiting to be filled with coalitions of interest groups and agendas. It is possible that one party or the other will cease to be like the Whigs, or Democratic-Republicans, the Bull-Moose, or the American Tories, but I find it more likely that they will stay around a while, altering their issues as needed. They will do their best never to fall below 40% of the vote in the general election without a third part independent involved. If this happens, they will scramble to redefine themselves in new ways. I remember after the 2008 elections, Lemur was hypothesizing the same thing, declaring the GOP dead and never to return, mistaking the party for the interests it currently represents and mistaking the American people's dislike for the policies of GWB with anything resembling an attention span or basic grasp of recent history. Then, the 2010 tea party stuff exploded, re-energizing the party. The party rode the wave like a bucking bronco, but the bronco is largely tamed at this point. The conservatives that are pissing and moaning about Romney are not the "tea party" republicans - they are the 1990's culture warrior Republicans. We've already taken the best parts of their movement and are leaving the worst parts behind.
There isn't anybody out there who thinks that Santorum will be the nominee in 2016 or 2020. They did, however, think that Romney would be the front-runner this time around back in 2008.
a completely inoffensive name
04-06-2012, 05:24
[Large rant, with some Lemur bashing for no apparent reason.]... The conservatives that are pissing and moaning about Romney are not the "tea party" republicans - they are the 1990's culture warrior Republicans. We've already taken the best parts of their movement and are leaving the worst parts behind.
Which is why everyone is so excited about Romney right? oh....
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2012, 05:38
What? Nixon was Mr Big government.
New Federalism is the antithesis of big government. I know he gets dinged for the EPA, but the early EPA was a good thing and definitely within the federal purview (pollution from states upstream effects states downstream, etc.). The Clean Air Act was a demonstrably good use of federal power. Some would argue that he should have had more foresight, but I do not think he can be blamed for the way the agency has been used and abused by successive administrations. His healthcare plan was actually a more conservative response to Teddy Kennedy's proposal for universal coverage. If it had been implemented, we probably wouldn't be experiencing the healthcare issues we are today. Considering that we will most likely end up with some kind of government run healthcare, if only to remain competitive with the rest of the developed world, I consider his stance to be prescient. IMO, Nixon was a great Republican president. He fought to devolve power that should be held by the states to the states and when he did exercise federal power it was in very beneficial and justified ways. He was fiscally conservative, socially disinterested, and pragmatic on foreign policy - always focused on strengthening America's position in the world.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you completely.
a completely inoffensive name
04-06-2012, 05:44
socially disinterested,
You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
Yep. Great man.
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2012, 05:54
Yep. Great man.
'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.
I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.'
Guess who.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-06-2012, 05:58
I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another.
Anyone know a good book around the Nixon era (or a biography)? One that doesn't waste time frothing at the mouth about quotes like this or about watergate.
a completely inoffensive name
04-06-2012, 06:20
'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.
I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.'
Guess who.
An overly glorified man.
I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.
Anyone know a good book around the Nixon era (or a biography)? One that doesn't waste time frothing at the mouth about quotes like this or about watergate.
Lol at frothing at the mouth. Your arguments are more persuasive when you don't assign the feelings of others for them.
I'm just having fun here. Someone says something and I will post a reply. At the beginning of the GOP nominee thread I liked Romney. Then the circus opened up and I started whoring myself out to see people's reactions.
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2012, 06:42
I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.
Mostly their policy proposals... and their ideas.
An overly glorified man.
Wow, and I thought I was the only one not sold on Abe's greatness. In any event, I do not believe in judging historical figures by the standards of our time. He may not have liked gay people (or he may have been engaging in gay (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/12/08/rumors-surface-that-nixon-was-gay) anti-gay pathology) but he did not try to push those beliefs on the nation through legislation. His management of the nation was largely socially disinterested.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-06-2012, 06:45
Lol at frothing at the mouth. Your arguments are more persuasive when you don't assign the feelings of others for them.
I'm just having fun here.
I didn't mean you were frothing at the mouth :(
Mostly their policy proposals... and their ideas.
Lot's of people have bad policy proposals and ideas. I think ron paul is out there but don't think he's poisonous. I don't look at him and say "the GOP would be better off without this libertarian element..."
PanzerJaeger
04-06-2012, 07:55
Lot's of people have bad policy proposals and ideas. I think ron paul is out there but don't think he's poisonous. I don't look at him and say "the GOP would be better off without this libertarian element..."
I would prefer not to have bad policy proposals and ideas in the party I support. In my opinion (and it is just my opinion), the Moral Majority types have brought nothing good into the party but their votes, and they are preventing it from becoming the kind of party I would ideally like to support, which is much more libertarian. Furthermore, the policies they have pursued are damaging to lots of people and personally offensive to my sensibilities. I do not relate to or like bible thumpers. Obviously a lot of Republicans probably like the religious element, and that is fine.
One of the reasons I was initially drawn to the GOP and conservatism was because the party seemed to have a healthy respect for religious people and traditionalism as opposed to the other side which is more often dismissive toward the religious. However, there is a big difference between respecting the fact that most Americans are religious and the religious traditions of the nation and letting a bunch of fanatics write legislation that, say, protects bullies who hide behind religious belief. I would love for the GOP to be the party of religious freedom and respect, but not the party of religion.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-06-2012, 08:23
It would surprise me if the trend wasn't in that direction. I'm pretty sure gay marriage support has increased quite dramatically over the last few years.
Ideally the libertarians and religious groups would have a moderating effect on each other...
Actually, the Republicans are THE Big Government party.
That's been true my entire life, and I'm over 40. The Dems have plenty of problems as well, but the cognitive dissonance of hearing from Repubs about how government must be smaller, then bigger (when they are in power), has been a constant throughout my four-plus decades. Recent illustration from the CBO (and note that the $1.4 trillion price tag on the two wars is prolly low):
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Cost.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
04-06-2012, 15:34
It would surprise me if the trend wasn't in that direction. I'm pretty sure gay marriage support has increased quite dramatically over the last few years.
Ideally the libertarians and religious groups would have a moderating effect on each other...
Agreed, the Religious Republican voters are the part of the coatlition who are worried about the health and souls of the forgotten. They have a balancing effect on the Ayn Rand types and help the party get votes with the majority of Americans. Superstitious twits, right?
Republicans need to work on their response to the allure of power. I wasn't a Republican before, now I am. I try to learn lessons from history and would like to see government's hand over the life of this country broken and money returned to the taxpayers. I need to resist the urge to support policies that sound awesome but are massively expensive.
Strike For The South
04-06-2012, 16:49
I like Nixon, I like Kissenger more
PanzerJaeger
04-10-2012, 20:13
I guess Santorum could not risk (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/presidential-candidate-rick-santorum-announcement/) losing his home state. Congrats Mitt Romney! I hope he has prepared himself and his family, because Obama and the media will be merciless.
Is this (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP57619a61d8d84d639c75fb74ff96e47e.html) significant?
"He pointedly made no mention or endorsement of Romney, whom Santorum had derided as an unworthy standard-bearer for the GOP."
a completely inoffensive name
04-10-2012, 20:29
Is this (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP57619a61d8d84d639c75fb74ff96e47e.html) significant?
"He pointedly made no mention or endorsement of Romney, whom Santorum had derided as an unworthy standard-bearer for the GOP."
He could just be a bitter man at the moment. Give him another month and see if he wants to rally around Romney to beat Obama.
PanzerJaeger
04-10-2012, 20:33
Is this (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP57619a61d8d84d639c75fb74ff96e47e.html) significant?
"He pointedly made no mention or endorsement of Romney, whom Santorum had derided as an unworthy standard-bearer for the GOP."
I do not think Hillary endorsed Obama in her suspension speech. Wasn't it done later in an event of its own?
I do not think Hillary endorsed Obama in her suspension speech. Wasn't it done later in an event of its own?
Nah, she endorsed him in her concession. I checked the transcript here (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/hillary_clintons_concession_sp.html). But there were some hard feelings, as I recall with the whole PUMA thing, and there were more events later in which Hil appeared onstage with 'Bama.
Anyway, if it's not a big deal then it's not a big deal. I just thought it was customary when it was down to two.
Okay, now it's time for Newty-boy to shine. He should come out strongly in favor of continuing the primary fight.
Oh, right, Newt, I had forgotten him completely.
Papewaio
04-11-2012, 01:19
So out of the fire into the cauldron it's eye on Newt time.
ICantSpellDawg
04-11-2012, 04:13
Okay, now it's time for Newty-boy to shine. He should come out strongly in favor of continuing the primary fight.
Newt will drop out tomorrow, or fight on long enough to beat Santorum's delegate count, just in case Romney dies or something crazy
Fun fact learned today. "Suspending" a campaign is not the same as dropping out. Dropping out shuts of the money, while a suspended campaign allows the candidate to continue collecting funds (which should go to pay off campaign debts, but who knows).
Newt will not drop out, but his campaign is so broke he is essentially suspended. Paul is angling for something, and he has the money to keep going.
Even though he's no longer running, Herman Cain continues to release the best performance art of all. I got a genuine belly-laugh out of this one. Maybe that's the point? Seriously, what's with the man being eaten alive by chickens?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1rjf7zdD-M
gaelic cowboy
04-13-2012, 22:37
Is that some kind of subtle southern joke about fried chicken and black people seeing as it's Hermain Cain performance art
Newt Gingrich Assaulted by Penguin (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/221757-penguin-bites-gingrich-at-st-louis-zoo)
ST. LOUIS — At least one penguin at the St. Louis Zoo appears to be a feisty opponent of Newt Gingrich.
The Republican presidential candidate is sporting a small bandage on his finger after getting nipped by a small penguin during his tour of the zoo on Friday. Gingrich was in St. Louis to speak during the National Rifle Association's annual meeting.
During his visit to the popular zoo in Forest Park, he was treated to a behind-the-scenes visit with two Magellanic penguins. One of them nipped Gingrich on the finger.
Zoo spokeswoman Susan Gallagher says a small bandage was all the medical care required.
Tellos Athenaios
04-17-2012, 00:40
Wrong link, I think.
PanzerJaeger
04-17-2012, 20:51
Wow. Right off the heels of a damaging primary, a very damaging 'war on women' that he did not ask for, and the persistently damaging GOP problem with the Latino vote, Romney led Obama in Gallup's inaugural general election poll by two points yesterday and by five today (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx).
I did not expect Romney to even pull even with the president until the convention, where voters will get a proper introduction to his life story and achievements. This polling probably reflects Obama's weakness more than Romney's strength, but this is a surprisingly strong starting point for Romney as we move into the general and supports the assertion that he will be stronger with the general electorate than he was with the GOP base.
Wow. Right off the heels of a damaging primary, a very damaging 'war on women' that he did not ask for, and the persistently damaging GOP problem with the Latino vote, Romney led Obama in Gallup's inaugural general election poll by two points yesterday and by five today (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx).
I did not expect Romney to even pull even with the president until the convention, where voters will get a proper introduction to his life story and achievements. This polling probably reflects Obama's weakness more than Romney's strength, but this is a surprisingly strong starting point for Romney as we move into the general and supports the assertion that he will be stronger with the general electorate than he was with the GOP base.
Let's wait and see what happens once the attack ad war revs up.
Major Robert Dump
04-19-2012, 09:25
So are the Republicans actually trying to get a candidate who is the most unlike most Americans? McCain was a better candidate than Romney, the dude is filthy rich, completely detached from the middle class and small businesses, and he not only lives on another planet but will apparently be going to another one when he dies. If the Dems nominated a Mormon he would be crucified. I mean, this is effin hilarious that it came down to Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.
Romney campaign motto thus far: I am not Obama,
When his wife said in the tv interview "it's our turn now" I LOLd.
This is why I really keep going to war, so I dont have to be smothered in idiotic american politics. God I can't wait to move to another country.
Major Robert Dump
04-19-2012, 09:45
All it takes a brief visit to some of my old Army buddies' facebook profiles to see that many Americans see Obama (for whatever reason) as the second coming of <insert whatever great evil you can think of here>.
I don't get it. It just makes me think of Southpark. Rabblerabblerabblerabble.
Yeah I like how Obama can increase military spending each year but it's still considered cutting it.
I will say that the Obama's rehab and employment initiatives that have been ongoing (with more being implemented) have been a pretty successful, as I have seen this stuff firsthand. Any injured soldier who leaves the service today with no sort of plan or future job or higher education ignored ample offers and opportunities. You cannot save everyone, as there will always be the kids who would rather spend their convalescence time playing xbox and drinking rather than going to interviews at federal agencies and doing internships at fortune 500 companies. LEt's just say that it is so effectively executed (at least at this base) that those of us who have jobs and plans are really getting annoyed at all the crap shoved down our throats.
Anyway, the point of the previous paragraph is that GWB did nothing even remotely at this level
The republicans don't have nearly the stranglehold on the military voting scheme as they used to. It is pretty close to 50-50 I would be willing to bet, thanks in no small part to women and more minorities and, um, the internet where you can learn that the jerk who says "thank you for your service" is also sitting on a congressional committee that fields defective vehicles manufactured in his state. Here's looking at you, MATVs.
This is not to say the military has a lot of liberals, because I don't think it does. For the most part the military is full of middle aged swing voters and young knee-jerkers on both sides. I just always get a good LOL when Repubs talk like they own the very concept of all things military when the sad fact is that the Repubs today are as big of pussies as they accused the non-serving Democrats of the 90s as being. I expect another shift in about 15-25 years when the young soldiers start running. Right now the bulk of the soldiers who run for office are older JAG-off types or field grrades who try to run on their military record and make fools of themselves doing it.
gaelic cowboy
04-19-2012, 12:38
Is this the first election where neither side has served in the millitary??
Seeing as Obama is now running a couple of wars he would surely have the greater millitary experience, and funnily enough he can get the nod from the Anti-War person because he was opposed to Iraq.
Romney on the otherhand seems to have been off fighting secularism in France during his youth.
This would be the first election so where this voodoo doll culture war has no meaning for either candidate, Romney apparently according to his wiki never even noticed it was going on and Obama was too young.
Major Robert Dump
04-19-2012, 14:28
It may very well be, although I don't think anyone seriously ever considered GWBs "military service" seriously, considering he did it amidst a brutal war.
Bush's record vs Kerry's military record was really quite the debacle
On a similar note, one cannot walk around a military base in the US without seeing every other E-7 or O-4 and up without a deploymen patch. There is no excuse for that in the regular army, and I can promise you that that will not stop these people from saying they served during time of war were they to run for office. I would say that in the brigade I just deployed with, 25% of the aforementioned ranks fell into a never deployed category, and really there is no excuse for that in my state considering we get deployed every two years like clockwork since 2004.
Nevermind that to be in 12 years amidst 2 non stop wars that add up to 20 years and not get deployed takes a whole lot of effort on your part. I am also a big fan of the big HOOAH "I served!"s who retired as soon as the war started. I knew a few of those personally, argued with them about Iraq, and of course I was the unpatriotic one. They got their deployment notification, one resigned, one got pregnant at 39 and one ETS'd whereas he was previously planning on doing another 4 years to hit 20, and he came back in recently to get his last 4 in and got good ole boyed into an Egypt mission which is like a vacation. Real class acts.
I'm totally off topic now, ignore me ranting
Greyblades
04-19-2012, 14:34
No go on, its alot more interesting than the should-be-one-sided-fight between obama and romney.
gaelic cowboy
04-19-2012, 14:35
It may very well be, although I don't think anyone seriously ever considered GWBs "military service" seriously, considering he did it amidst a brutal war.
Bush's record vs Kerry's military record was really quite the debacle
It still amazes me how Karl Rove managed to protray John Kerry as the coward and Bush the hero.
It still amazes me how Karl Rove managed to protray John Kerry as the coward and Bush the hero.
Yah, and the general acceptance that it was okay to mock a combat vet's service and purple hearts (http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-30/politics/gop.purple.hearts_1_purple-hearts-kerry-backers-swift-boat-veterans?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS). That quickly got filed in my "never forget" category.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/purpleheart140.jpg
P.S.: I know we are in the campaign's "silly season," but even so I find cookiegate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/romney-comments-spark-cookiegate-special/) a bit much. I mean, really? Really?
I did not expect Romney to even pull even with the president until the convention, where voters will get a proper introduction to his life story and achievements.
I wasn't aware of it, but apparently there is a post-primary bounce (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/do-romneys-favorability-ratings-matter/) (for when a pol wraps up a nomination) that is more common that not. Huh. Learn something every day.
[W]e will see some improvement in Mr. Romney’s favorability numbers over the next month or two. It has not been uncommon in the past for a candidate’s numbers to decline while he is actively engaged in a primary, but for him to go through a honeymoon period once he begins to wrap up the nomination.
We’ll have a better sense for where Mr. Romney’s numbers are likely to settle in [...] once the general election campaign has become more substantive a couple of months from now.
Kralizec
04-19-2012, 22:26
It still amazes me how Karl Rove managed to protray John Kerry as the coward and Bush the hero.
It was so bad that John McCain distanced himself from those ads and stood up for Kerry. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I'd pick McCain over Obama in 2008, but I definitely would have preferred him over Bush (or Gore, for that matter) in 2000.
PanzerJaeger
04-19-2012, 23:08
Yah, and the general acceptance that it was okay to mock a combat vet's service and purple hearts (http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-30/politics/gop.purple.hearts_1_purple-hearts-kerry-backers-swift-boat-veterans?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS). That quickly got filed in my "never forget" category.
Well, he kind of started that fad himself. IMO, and I know it is not a popular one, Kerry got exactly what he deserved. He structured his whole campaign around being the war hero who was going to fix Iraq. As partisan and outrageous as the Swift Boaters were, they did remind the public of what he called his fellow veterans - in his own words. If he wanted to call himself a war criminal for his own aggrandizement that was his business, but to call his fellow veterans war criminals was pretty awful. It took thirty years for karma to catch up with him, but when it did, it was spectacular.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-21-2012, 20:54
P.S.: I know we are in the campaign's "silly season," but even so I find cookiegate a bit much. I mean, really? Really?
I prefer the competing "doggie-gates"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nEBN8wOKjMo
PanzerJaeger
04-25-2012, 08:30
Great speech tonight. He finally brought out the venerable 'are you better off today than you were four years ago?' And
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvN-v4n6leM
Many days ago in the GOP thread I asked you Romney fans to outline his platform for me. I still have no idea what this man stands for, and I suspect most of you don't either. If he stands for nothing, then he's just another tool of a party that hasn't really changed much since Bush left office.
Jon Stewart has been running quite a few clips of Romney stating a position, then following up with clips of Romney stating the exact opposite. He quite literally will say anything, it's it looks almost pathological. If Romney says tat the sky is blue, I'd have to check it out myself.
gaelic cowboy
04-25-2012, 16:08
Jon Stewart has been running quite a few clips of Romney stating a position, then following up with clips of Romney stating the exact opposite. He quite literally will say anything, it's it looks almost pathological. If Romney says tat the sky is blue, I'd have to check it out myself.
The apparent showcasing of this shutdown drywall factory lately as proof of Obama's economic ineptitude looked stupid to me.
On what planet would a drywall factory have being doing well during a house bubble crash anyway.
Your right he will say anything I bet his elction poster will just say "Not Obama Mkay"
I bet his elction poster will just say "Not Obama Mkay"
Well, don't underestimate the power of "not Obama." I would guess somewhere around ~15%–20% of the U.S. electorate would vote for a transgendered squid on the basis of it not being Obama. But the president is not so toxic that "not Obama" is a straight-up win for Romney. He needs to sell his own brand, propose his own hopey changey sort of thing.
-edit-
Meanwhile, shocking news, Newt concedes (http://www.nationaljournal.com//2012-presidential-campaign/gingrich-unofficially-concedes-gop-nomination-race-to-romney-20120425). Mostly. Sorta. And Romney has a weakish series of wins (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/04/romney_sets_unwanted_record_in.php), which portends ... dunno, really. This is going to be a strange contest.
Romney won only 56 percent of the vote in Delaware and 58 percent in Pennsylvania, home to Rick Santorum who dropped out on April 10th.
While Romney avoided the embarrassment of winning with a mere plurality, never has a presumptive nominee won a primary contest with such a low level of support at this stage of the race with his chief challenger no longer actively campaigning. [...]
GOP frontrunners have averaged 78 percent of the vote in contests conducted after the last credible challenger left the race.
PanzerJaeger
04-27-2012, 22:49
The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun. Watching Clinton spin the easiest decision that Obama has had to make during his presidency into the hardest was quite impressive though. Bill's still got it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD75KOoNR9k&feature=player_embedded
Sasaki Kojiro
04-27-2012, 22:56
Yeah I saw that too. Here's the context for the second romney quote:
LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and
executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."
And iirc the first one was about how specific you get while you are still running for office, how close to your chest you keep your cards.
It's weird to suggest that a republican president would not have given the go ahead. I give Obama a lot of credit for things like that, but it's compared to other democrats/liberals.
The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun.
It's better than cookiegate or the tale of two dogs; at least this is something someone actually did that actually mattered. I find it impossible to imagine a Republican president not making a big deal about bagging Bin Laden.
I give Obama a lot of credit for things like that, but it's compared to other democrats/liberals.
As per usual, you have a unique slant on things. Note that a very hawkish Republican president had the better part of seven years and a functionally unlimited budget to do the same thing, and yet you only give the current president credit in relation "to other democrats/liberals." So he's okay as far as pinko queer liberal tree-huggers go, eh?
gaelic cowboy
04-30-2012, 14:50
The politicization of the assassination of OBL has begun. Watching Clinton spin the easiest decision that Obama has had to make during his presidency into the hardest was quite impressive though. Bill's still got it.
I was under the impression they didn't know for sure therefore the decision was hardly easy made Yes/No
Allied with the fact it took some effort to follow the leads to the actual place twas hardly a slam dunk smash the glass lay up for Obama. (leads that prob could have been found earlier if the will had been there)
It's weird to suggest that a republican president would not have given the go ahead.
Yes, it's freakishly strange (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/10-years-of-war-the-battle-of-tora-bora-missed-opportunity/) to suggest that an opportunity might be missed by a Republican president. Because, as we all know, Republicans get everything right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) on national security, as opposed to the crypto-communist Dems (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/soledad-obrien-allen-west-communists-congress_n_1437416.html).
I'm sorry, the 1980s called, and they'd like their parachute pants back.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-30-2012, 16:45
Yes, it's freakishly strange (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/10-years-of-war-the-battle-of-tora-bora-missed-opportunity/) to suggest that an opportunity might be missed by a Republican president. Because, as we all know, Republicans get everything right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War) on national security, as opposed to the crypto-communist Dems (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/soledad-obrien-allen-west-communists-congress_n_1437416.html).
I'm sorry, the 1980s called, and they'd like their parachute pants back.
Parachute pants!!! Much chuckle at this was had by me. I hadn't thought of that 80's ghastlyism of fashion in some time.
Sasaki Kojiro
04-30-2012, 17:05
Note that a very hawkish Republican president had the better part of seven years and a functionally unlimited budget to do the same thing
The ad is "gutsy call", watch the intro again
and yet you only give the current president credit in relation "to other democrats/liberals."
and Ron Paul
It's not incomprehensible anyway, it's like someone giving McCain credit for being anti-waterboarding, but only vs other republicans, or something like that.
Parachute pants!!!
And you can't enjoy parachute pants unless you also sport unreasonably large shoulder pads (http://www.liketotally80s.com/top-80s-fashion-trends.html). This are important.
The ad is "gutsy call", watch the intro again
Watched the first 15 seconds again; didn't hear anything inaccurate (just some political coup-scoring for the op). Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/29/how-obama-got-bin-laden-a-detailed-account-from-showdown-by-david-corn.html), the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.
I don't understand how it's legitimate for Bush II to base his entire presidency on 9/11, which he had nothing to do with, but it's politicizing and wicked for President Obama to say, "Hey, I got OBL" (which he actually did). It's cheesy, sure, but it's not misleading or inaccurate or the usual sort of pettifoggery we see in campaigns. It's an actual event in which he made an actual decision with an actual result. OH THE HUMANITY!
PanzerJaeger
04-30-2012, 22:05
What elicits eye rolls from me about the ad is not the administration cynically using a nationally unifying event to score cheap political points or the selective editing of a Romney quote to make a completely baseless assertion about his willingness to OK such an operation. Obama & Co are just as sleazy and amoral as any other group of American politicos, and that's just American politics.
However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence. I believe in their 'Mission Accomplished'-esce rollout last week, the administration even suggested that Obama bet his presidency on the raid.
As if. First of all, this was not - at all - a hard decision. As I said before, it was most likely the easiest decision the president has had to make during his 3.5 years - a decision any president of either party would have made without hesitation. It had a huge upside and practically no downside. Anyone familiar with our operations in the region knows that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these raids conducted by SOCOM each year, both inside and outside official combat theatres and especially in Pakistan. Many of those raids are unsuccessful. The American public never hears about them. Had OBL not been at the compound, we likely never would have known about the raid. Even a worst case scenario - the raid being stopped by Pakistani forces and the SEALS captured and/or killed - would have been an obscure international incident, a dust-up between two international frienemies that would have struggled to make it to the top of GoogleNews and would have been resolved with several trunks full of crisp $100 bills, as every problem with Pakistan is.
Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/29/how-obama-got-bin-laden-a-detailed-account-from-showdown-by-david-corn.html), the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.
I would be careful citing David Corn as a reliable, objective source on the president. Fred Barnes wrote a fun book on the Bush presidency, but I wouldn't call it a critical assessment. :grin:
a completely inoffensive name
04-30-2012, 22:14
And you can't enjoy parachute pants unless you also sport unreasonably large shoulder pads (http://www.liketotally80s.com/top-80s-fashion-trends.html). This are important.
Take my breath awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEOem7U2LPE
Sasaki Kojiro
04-30-2012, 22:15
Watched the first 15 seconds again; didn't hear anything inaccurate (just some political coup-scoring for the op). Besides which, according to the most detailed reporting that has surfaced (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/29/how-obama-got-bin-laden-a-detailed-account-from-showdown-by-david-corn.html), the decision to perform the raid was very much President 44's call.
From david corn, author of:
The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. New York: Crown Publishers, 2003.
Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006. (Co-author with Michael Isikoff.)
Showdown: The Inside Story of How Obama Fought Back Against Boehner, Cantor, and the Tea Party - William Morrow, 2012.[15]
:laugh4:
Most detailed reporting that has surfaced? Who cares about how many details?
This blog interview with an alleged insider has plenty of "details"
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/04/30/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED MAY 3RD, 2011
Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.
______________________
Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?
A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.
Read more in News
« Obama Lies – Mitt Romney Never Said He Wouldn’t Go After Osama Bin Laden
I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.
Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.
What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via militarycontacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’soffice. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.
At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.
In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.
Stay safe.
But obviously the question is whether they are accurate details that tell the whole story, or whether, for example, someone distorted things or made them up whole sale to credit/discredit obama.
But none of the above matters for the question at hand...
Implying that other presidents wouldn't have made the call is silly. Claiming that the Romney quotes reveal that he wouldn't have made the call is even sillier. Remember, the ad is about the moment of decision, when he's been briefed and just has to give the go ahead. Heck, what would the political backlash be from passing on a chance like that?
Sasaki Kojiro
04-30-2012, 22:22
However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence. I believe in their 'Mission Accomplished'-esce rollout last week, the administration even suggested that Obama bet his presidency on the raid.
I think most right wing people had the bin laden killing down as a positive for Obama without even thinking about it. If anything that ad will make them disinclined to give him any credit.
However, the claim that this was a 'tough decision' with 'a lot of downside' is insulting to my intelligence.
I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different. But I shudder to think of the heyday Rushbo and the conservative media complex would have if Obama got a bunch of SEALS killed on a bum tip. Safe to say in that scenario the entire operation would have been a product of his fevered Alinskyite brain. But since it worked? Clearly he had nothing to do with it and/or it was so blindingly obvious a special needs child would have done the same. (Alternate: It could have been even better but OBOMBER screwed it up somehow, according ot our super-secret source. He deliberately allowed that stealth Blackhawk to crash so as to give the Chinese our tech, because he is a mulsin communist.)
I think most right wing people had the bin laden killing down as a positive for Obama without even thinking about it. If anything that ad will make them disinclined to give him any credit.
Because they were so on-the-fence before hand. These are largely the same people who believe that this administration's lack of movement on gun control is all part of a chilling Freemason scheme to take their guns away (http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11920/obamas-secret-plan-to-destroy-the-second-amendment-by-2016/). Nah, I suspect those who turn purple with rage from this web ad are not the "persuadables."
Based on Obama's response to Team Romney's fit of apoplexy, I suspect this is a classic rope-a-dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope). Obama's great political talent always has been inducing self-destruction in his opponents.
As for Corn, sorry for referencing, had no idea he was such a partisan hack. And SK, thanks for the gratuitous Tu Quoque of the screeching WMD-style article. Yay, two wrongs do make an omelet!
Major Robert Dump
04-30-2012, 22:37
Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.
So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.
Meanwhile, Team Romney continues to score goals on the wrong side of the field. Were all of you aware that the GM and Chrysler bailout were, in fact, exactly what Romney wanted (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/224371-romney-campaign-claims-auto-bailout-was-his-idea)? That President Obama was actually following Romney's advice?
One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.
"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.
"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."
The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in The New York Times, headlined, Let Detroit go bankrupt (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html). [...]
But during the primary campaign, Romney repeatedly attacked Obama for lending billions of dollars in government money to the auto companies.
In a February op-ed in The Detroit News, Romney called Obama's auto bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.”
“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse,” Romney wrote. “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
Since I can't post it in the Game of Thrones (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139224-Game-of-Thrones) thread (don't get the GWB reference, though—who is that character?):
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Game_of_American_Thrones.jpg
Kralizec
05-01-2012, 00:38
Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.
So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.
Only Bush could go to Iraq?
Major Robert Dump
05-01-2012, 03:04
I dont follow your question.
Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by democrat
Tellos Athenaios
05-01-2012, 03:33
(don't get the GWB reference, though—who is that character?)
Someone whose entire vocabulary consists of a single word "Hodor" which is also his name.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-01-2012, 03:34
I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different. But I shudder to think of the heyday Rushbo and the conservative media complex would have if Obama got a bunch of SEALS killed on a bum tip. Safe to say in that scenario the entire operation would have been a product of his fevered Alinskyite brain. But since it worked? Clearly he had nothing to do with it and/or it was so blindingly obvious a special needs child would have done the same. (Alternate: It could have been even better but OBOMBER screwed it up somehow, according ot our super-secret source. He deliberately allowed that stealth Blackhawk to crash so as to give the Chinese our tech, because he is a mulsin communist.)
It wasn't a tough decision with a lot of downside, especially compared to the downside for passing up on it. "perhaps panzer is right" yes I think so.
Because they were so on-the-fence before hand. These are largely the same people who believe that this administration's lack of movement on gun control is all part of a chilling Freemason scheme to take their guns away (http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11920/obamas-secret-plan-to-destroy-the-second-amendment-by-2016/). Nah, I suspect those who turn purple with rage from this web ad are not the "persuadables."
Most people give him a big thumbs up for it, but people are naturally put off when politicians try to sell their accomplishments too much.
Based on Obama's response to Team Romney's fit of apoplexy, I suspect this is a classic rope-a-dope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope). Obama's great political talent always has been inducing self-destruction in his opponents.
"Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” Mr. Romney told reporters at a campaign stop here on Monday...“Over these last several days, we’ve seen our president go across the country and bring up all sorts of extraneous items, everything he can do to distract from the issue people care about,” Mr. Romney told the crowd. “I wish the president would start talking about the economy and stop trying to divert with all this silliness.”
Is this what you meant by fit of apoplexy or some other quote (I assume). Obama's ad dishonestly smears romney. I wouldn't praise that. Obama's follow up "I assume people mean what they say" was pretty bad too.
I see another quote now, something about "feckless foreign policy". Good word but it seems pretty standard.
As for Corn, sorry for referencing, had no idea he was such a partisan hack. And SK, thanks for the gratuitous Tu Quoque of the screeching WMD-style article. Yay, two wrongs do make an omelet!
I have a dailymail article somewhere too, it's pretty nice. I had a pretty good idea the guy was a hack from reading the article but man just don't praise stuff just because it's detailed.
Of course there were a lot of downsides. He is a Democrat. GWB can take us into a retarded, pointless war in Iraq thatcosts vast amounts of lives and money, and it's all good now. Meanwhile, 30 years later, I get to hear about Jimmy Carter's failed Iranian rescue mission everytime a "democrats suck at military stuff" debate comes up. It even happens on this board quite regulalry.
So yeah, it was a tough decision, because if Iraq had been started by a Democrat he would have been crucified 10x over now, and Obama certainly didn't want to become the butt of Republican jokes for the next 30 years because he didn't bring an extra helicopter.
I'm not so sure about this. I remember another story about a raid in somalia. Presumably this kind of thing is done frequently and we're better at it than we wore. Times have changed. Bush was pretty harshly criticized and was mocked endlessly for the "mission accomplished" stuff. I would also think carter was unpopular for other stuff but I don't know the history for that era really. Way before my time.
I think obama should go for a broader focus and talk about what he's done with the drone strikes etc in combating terrorism on the whole, he would look much better. Especially since the context of the romney quote was about taking the problem as a whole and that was part of romney's response to the ad. Although the drone strikes are unpopular with some people I guess.
Meanwhile, Team Romney continues to score goals on the wrong side of the field. Were all of you aware that the GM and Chrysler bailout were, in fact, exactly what Romney wanted (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/224371-romney-campaign-claims-auto-bailout-was-his-idea)? That President Obama was actually following Romney's advice?
One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.
"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.
"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."
The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in The New York Times, headlined, Let Detroit go bankrupt (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html). [...]
But during the primary campaign, Romney repeatedly attacked Obama for lending billions of dollars in government money to the auto companies.
In a February op-ed in The Detroit News, Romney called Obama's auto bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.”
“The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse,” Romney wrote. “I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
Huh, I went and read both the romney articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1329233131-/Ubc8vP5/1x13HjVAzFRSg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/14/crony-capitalist-auto-bailout-mitt-romney
And I don't really get the fuss. Perhaps the media is a little latched on to it's flip flopping romney story. Romney has serious criticisms of the way obama handled it, and there are significant similarities between his suggestion and what was actually done. I don't get economics but neither do political journalists as far as I can tell. If there's a problem it seems like it would have to do with romney being wrong about economics not some lightweight story about contradicting himself and claiming credit.
I tried to find the context for the Fehrnstrom quote but the video won't load, seems like it's from some press conference where they were talking about pranks and slow jamming the news and "the lighter side", so it seems silly to be so particular about the wording.
I dont follow your question.
Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by democrat
I remember bush getting hammered about that around the 2008 election and McCain working really hard to distance himself and obama working hard to connect him to it. I don't think it was brushed under the rug at all.
a completely inoffensive name
05-01-2012, 04:28
I remember bush getting hammered about that around the 2008 election and McCain working really hard to distance himself and obama working hard to connect him to it. I don't think it was brushed under the rug at all.
My recollection is that the 2008 distancing from Bush was nearly 100% economy driven. His 8 years of policies caused this bubble, yadda, yadda, yadda. Didn't hear to much about Iraq when everyone kept showing pictures of McCain with Bush along side that famous quote "The fundamentals of our economy are strong.".
Kralizec
05-01-2012, 13:29
Only Bush could go to Iraq?
I dont follow your question.
Had the raid failed it would be a campaign sticking point of the right, much like what we still hear about Carter, despite there being a far worse military blunder started since Carters failure, that being Iraq, which we have already brushed under the rug because that campaign was not started by #democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China
Only Bush could have mucked it up without losing all credibility ~;)
It wasn't a tough decision with a lot of downside, especially compared to the downside for passing up on it.
Ah, so you're dead certain that sending Navy SEALS into a sovereign nation with uncertain intel was "not a tough decision." I admire your certainty, if not your reasoning.
Bush was pretty harshly criticized and was mocked endlessly for the "mission accomplished" stuff.
False equivalence is false. GWB chest-thumped over an accomplishment which was epically unaccomplished. BHO is chest-thumping over an actual accomplishment. Small but crucial difference.
Perhaps the media is a little latched on to it's flip flopping romney story.
Ah, those evil, evil media people. Is there any wickedness they don't promote?
-edit-
Here's a useful and accurate bit of perspective (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/01/obama-s-osama-bin-laden-ad-is-a-well-played-attack.html)(from the EVIL MEDIA, natch):
You know who this puts Obama on par with? Every fricking Republican who has run for office since 2001. Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, whose infamous 3 a.m. phone-call ad from 2008 is being revisited in the wake of Obama’s new one.
Let us take a brief stroll down memory lane to the 2004 Republican Convention. The not-so-subtle theme: vote for John Kerry and al Qaeda will invade your homes and eat your children. This is only a slight exaggeration. Dick Cheney hasn’t uttered a word in the past decade that didn’t raise the specter of terrorists at the door. And Rudy Giuliani? Joe Biden said it best when he noted that for a long stretch, every sentence that came out of Hizzoner’s mouth consisted of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”
Going even further back, who can forget President Bush’s much-ridiculed, flight-suity “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln? But you know one of the main reasons that photo op was so widely ridiculed? It was bollocks. The “mission” in Iraq was anything but “accomplished.” Bush was touting an achievement he had not yet even achieved.
Osama bin Laden, by contrast, is very, very dead. [...]
Romney has been swinging at the president’s international cred of late. The governor has suggested he would be tougher than Obama on everyone from China to Iran, while his foreign-policy adviser Richard Williamson has flat out accused Obama of “naiveté and fecklessness.”
Those sound like fighting words to me. [...]
Is Team Obama’s ad a political punch to Romney’s magnificently chiseled jaw? Of course it is. It is harsh, exploitative, tacky even.
It is, in short, perfectly in keeping with today’s political climate.A little more amusingness (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/why-obama-owns-bin-laden/):
Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.And so on and so forth (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/01/michael-tomasky-how-the-gop-became-a-party-of-whiners-over-osama.html):
It couldn’t be more hilarious, watching these Republicans rend their garments over the Obama administration’s bin Laden video. Imaging the paroxysms we’d have been forced to endure if George W. Bush had iced the dreaded one is all we need to do to understand how hypocritical it all is. But what obviously gets under Republicans’ skin is not the fact of this video’s existence, but the fact that Barack Obama got him and they didn’t, which destroys their assumption of the past decade that they are “the 9/11 party."And my personal favorite (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40288_Romney-_Even_Jimmy_Carter_Would_Have_Given_the_Order_to_Kill_Bin_Laden), which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."
Sasaki Kojiro
05-01-2012, 17:43
Ah, so you're dead certain that sending Navy SEALS into a sovereign nation with uncertain intel was "not a tough decision." I admire your certainty, if not your reasoning.
Why do you think it was a tough decision?
False equivalence is false. GWB chest-thumped over an accomplishment which was epically unaccomplished. BHO is chest-thumping over an actual accomplishment. Small but crucial difference.
MRD was saying republican war goofs were ignored and democrat war goofs repeated over and over. I was arguing against that kind of disparity.
Ah, those evil, evil media people. Is there any wickedness they don't promote?
Yes. But it's bad that they latch on to an easy narrative and churn out "here's more of so and so being X" stories. It leads to a simplified and false image of the presidential candidates being broadcast to the american people. My favorite Kimmel joke from the WHCD was a "non joke":
"Some people say journalism is on the decline, you've become too politicized, too focused on sensationalism. They say you no longer honor your duty to inform America, but instead actively try to divide us so that your corporate overlords can rake in the profits… I don't have a joke for this, I'm just letting you know what some people say…"
:laugh4:
Here's a useful and accurate bit of perspective (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/01/obama-s-osama-bin-laden-ad-is-a-well-played-attack.html)(from the EVIL MEDIA, natch):
You know who this puts Obama on par with? Every fricking Republican who has run for office since 2001. Oh, yeah, and Hillary Clinton, whose infamous 3 a.m. phone-call ad from 2008 is being revisited in the wake of Obama’s new one.
Let us take a brief stroll down memory lane to the 2004 Republican Convention. The not-so-subtle theme: vote for John Kerry and al Qaeda will invade your homes and eat your children. This is only a slight exaggeration. Dick Cheney hasn’t uttered a word in the past decade that didn’t raise the specter of terrorists at the door. And Rudy Giuliani? Joe Biden said it best when he noted that for a long stretch, every sentence that came out of Hizzoner’s mouth consisted of “a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”
Going even further back, who can forget President Bush’s much-ridiculed, flight-suity “Mission Accomplished” speech on May 1, 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln? But you know one of the main reasons that photo op was so widely ridiculed? It was bollocks. The “mission” in Iraq was anything but “accomplished.” Bush was touting an achievement he had not yet even achieved.
Osama bin Laden, by contrast, is very, very dead. [...]
Romney has been swinging at the president’s international cred of late. The governor has suggested he would be tougher than Obama on everyone from China to Iran, while his foreign-policy adviser Richard Williamson has flat out accused Obama of “naiveté and fecklessness.”
Those sound like fighting words to me. [...]
Is Team Obama’s ad a political punch to Romney’s magnificently chiseled jaw? Of course it is. It is harsh, exploitative, tacky even.
It is, in short, perfectly in keeping with today’s political climate.
A little more amusingness (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/30/why-obama-owns-bin-laden/):
Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.And so on and so forth (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/01/michael-tomasky-how-the-gop-became-a-party-of-whiners-over-osama.html):
It couldn’t be more hilarious, watching these Republicans rend their garments over the Obama administration’s bin Laden video. Imaging the paroxysms we’d have been forced to endure if George W. Bush had iced the dreaded one is all we need to do to understand how hypocritical it all is. But what obviously gets under Republicans’ skin is not the fact of this video’s existence, but the fact that Barack Obama got him and they didn’t, which destroys their assumption of the past decade that they are “the 9/11 party."And my personal favorite (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40288_Romney-_Even_Jimmy_Carter_Would_Have_Given_the_Order_to_Kill_Bin_Laden), which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."
What "intriguing, substantive, and legitimate" questions does the ad raise? Why did you link and quote four people who are just saying the same things you've been saying?
I get it, to you any kind of dishonest smear job by obama is fine because as long as it shows he's a "clever politician" who's "taking it to the republicans". You often focus on the polls and how some political move might go over with the public rather than whether it's actually good or bad and you consistently have this wildly exaggerated impression of how "hard obama rocked" the republicans. They are rending their garments, getting beaten up, in apoplexy, ferocious sputtering, etc. :dizzy2:
It's a weird situation where the rest of the people (not just me and panzer, the forum as a whole) are here talking about politics and events etc, metaphorically sitting around a fireplace, and you're here campaigning like we're in the political trenches, throwing out blog-grenades willy nilly, scrabbling around for ammunition to use against the "enemy", and ducking imaginary salvos.
Why do you think it was a tough decision?
By most accounts there were two options put forward on the uncertain intel: Bomb or go in with a team. The safe option was to bomb. Do the math. (Of course, the far-right blog post you credulously repost entire (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140899-2012-U-S-Presidential-Election&p=2053445153&viewfull=1#post2053445153) probably says differently (I take it wingnut, unsourced conspiracy theories are part of your fireside chat ethos?). I'm going with mainstream accounts (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/taking-out-bin-laden--us-options-revealed-20120501-1xw5h.html). And yes, a joint op with Pakistan was considered, and I hope laughed out of the room.)
I get it, to you any kind of dishonest smear job by obama is fine because as long as it shows he's a "clever politician" who's "taking it to the republicans".
Thank you for articulating my entire worldview! I can rest easy now, much less hard thinking to do.
You often focus on the polls and how some political move might go over with the public rather than whether it's actually good or bad
Needs citation, as the Wikipedia folks say.
It's a weird situation where the rest of the people (not just me and panzer, the forum as a whole) are here talking about politics and events etc, metaphorically sitting around a fireplace, and you're here campaigning like we're in the political trenches, throwing out blog-grenades willy nilly, scrabbling around for ammunition to use against the "enemy", and ducking imaginary salvos.
I'd suggest that speaking for the Org as a whole is a dicey bit of business, which you'll probably want to retract or "clarify," not to mention the unintentional comedy factor of telling me my own motives. You do, in fact, appear to be rending your garments.
-edit-
P.S.: Romney has updated his rhetoric (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/mitt-romney-osama-bin-laden-anniversary-barack-obama/1#.T6AYJutDwUU), recognizing a losing fight for what is is. Might want to adjust yours as well.
Mitt Romney today praised President Obama for giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, a day after saying "even Jimmy Carter" would have done so.
"I commend all those who planned and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the go-ahead for the mission," Romney said in a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death.Going back to your response to Team Romney being the guiding light in the Detroit bailout:
Romney has serious criticisms of the way obama handled it, and there are significant similarities between his suggestion and what was actually done. I don't get economics but neither do political journalists as far as I can tell. If there's a problem it seems like it would have to do with romney being wrong about economics not some lightweight story about contradicting himself and claiming credit.
Everyone agreed that GM and Chrysler needed restructuring; the question was how. Obama believed that the feds needed to be involved, Romney did not, and writes about finding private investors. Economists then and now pointed out that private investors were running scared, and that delaying everything to find them would result in an unstructured bankruptcy for two of the big three American automakers. Details (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/a-short-history-of-mitt-romneys-views-on-the-detroit-bailout/256513/):
The major questions here are (1) whether it was feasible for the companies to find private financing to restructure and (2) whether the associated job loss and economic ripple effects would have been acceptable. While Romney is correct that the restructuring was what he suggested, his idea at the time was hardly unique; there was a consensus that the companies needed to be significantly reshaped. The question was how to do it, and he said the answer was without federal funds.
PanzerJaeger
05-01-2012, 20:49
I seem to recall specials ops gone wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) having some impact in the past. Perhaps you're right and now would be different.
It would be very different. The Carter Administration, being the Carter Administration, announced the failure of the mission to the world on the night that it happened and detailed pretty much the entire affair. The Iranians were not even sure what was going on until they read the administration's statement, which caused them to split the hostages up - making future rescue missions nearly impossible. These days, SOCOM raids on HVTs in the AfPak region are quite common and the military has developed a public relations architecture to deal with any eventuality, which is essentially silence followed by denial followed by outright lies. And maybe long after any potential story has died in the news cycle, some relevant half truths are dumped on a Friday afternoon before a holiday. This can be done because pretty much everyone in these missions is SOCOM or absorbed into SOCOM before they go, which did not exist in its current form in the '70's. Carter used lots of regular forces and there is, or was (the military keeps plenty of stuff they do hidden these days too), a perceived duty to be more transparent about their circumstances.
And my personal favorite, which appears to be addressed directly to Sasaki and Panzer: "So the Republican position on the operation that took out Osama bin Laden is that it was no big deal? Good luck with that one."
Bah. The backroom is searchable now. Go look at the thread I started about the killing of OBL. I made it clear that it was a big deal and gave the president plenty of credit for doing it - and I still do. I simply take issue with the notion that it was a particularly tough decision that only a president with Obama's resolve (:rolleyes:) could have made. Any president would have loved to get the man. As Romney said yesterday, 'even Jimmy Carter would have made that call.'
I simply take issue with the notion that it was a particularly tough decision that only a president with Obama's resolve (:rolleyes:) could have made.
I guess I don't understand the outrage. Two thoughts: (1) Saying, "Hey, I did this thing and I'm uniquely cool for doing it" is pretty basic stuff, politically. It's not remarkable or abhorrent. (2) Sending in a team was riskier than bombing. Bigger risk for bigger reward, in terms of intel gained. I don't see how that's arguable.
Papewaio
05-01-2012, 23:48
Bombing is higher risk to all levels involved except to US special forces servicemen.
Bombs tend to kill civilians, destroy intel and like the cave bombings you are never certain that your target is now vapourised or living it up with his wives at another location.
The risk with going into Pakistan was invading a sovereign nation... well to be precise running a military operation against a wanted terrorist but not informing the local chain of command... Risk was to political and social whilst minimizing flight or fight combat risks. Mind you the Pakistan government may have know but they way it was spun gave them plausible deniability with their hardline elements. Bombing however would have created a larger backlash.
Intel could be confirmed that they got their man. Even if he shoulder camera did just happen to fail on entry to the room, and that capture and parading him in front of the world would have been the gold star... It is still much better from an intel point of view to shoot, tag and bag him rather then bomb and pray.
Bombs have a habit of missing targets. You don't want to start bombing military base towns in a spray and pray mission. Great way to not just burn an alliance but to start a war.
So bombing really wasn't the least risk option when doing he total tally. Whilst executing OBL was certainly not the highest return on risk, it was at least a return. The problems with getting OBL back would have been much harder than getting in.
a completely inoffensive name
05-01-2012, 23:49
Personally it just seems like the Republicans are crying foul because they don't have any sort of counter or spin. Usually when someone makes a claim, it's easy for the other to construct a spin and turn t around on the other guy. How can you spin this against Obama? Well, other than complaining about being unfair. But then again, Bush himself said that he honestly didn't care where OBL was after Tora Bora. Something along the lines of "He's not important."
Honestly, the Republican PR machine has been dropping the ball recently. They lost the War on Women, and now their defense with OBL is McCain saying, "Well, the thing about heros, is that they don't brag."
Uh huh, thanks John McCain, I'm sure you have followed that advice.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-02-2012, 07:03
By most accounts there were two options put forward on the uncertain intel: Bomb or go in with a team. The safe option was to bomb. Do the math.
Chance of being sure we got osama with the bomb = 0?? That math?
(Of course, the far-right blog post you credulously repost entire (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140899-2012-U-S-Presidential-Election&p=2053445153&viewfull=1#post2053445153) probably says differently (I take it wingnut, unsourced conspiracy theories are part of your fireside chat ethos?).
This blog interview with an alleged insider has plenty of "details"
But obviously the question is whether they are accurate details that tell the whole story, or whether, for example, someone distorted things or made them up whole sale to credit/discredit obama.
I don't think it's a far right blog post, I think it's fake. To make a point about not dropping links with the praise that they are "detailed". Since that post was very detailed.
I'm going with mainstream accounts (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/taking-out-bin-laden--us-options-revealed-20120501-1xw5h.html). And yes, a joint op with Pakistan was considered, and I hope laughed out of the room.)
I'll take "mainstream" over "detailed", but only marginally. But this is basically the same story from a year ago lemur.
Thank you for articulating my entire worldview! I can rest easy now, much less hard thinking to do.
Needs citation, as the Wikipedia folks say.
Hopefully constructive criticism. Think we had the same talk in the trayvon thread.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?112822-Thoughts-amp-Commentary-on-the-Obama-Administration&p=2367161&highlight=rope-a-dope#post2367161
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?112822-Thoughts-amp-Commentary-on-the-Obama-Administration&p=2365220&highlight=rope-a-dope#post2365220
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?104403-U-S-Elections-2008-General-Elections-Analysis-and-Commentary&p=2037954&highlight=rope-a-dope#post2037954
A "rope-a-dope" search gets these three, but really I don't see why you try to deny it. I pointed out that you focus on the campaign fodder instead of just looking at things in terms of good or bad and a few lines later you are saying I should change my rhetoric because romney changed his, then in replying to pj you say that obama's ad was "pretty basic stuff, poltically". I even asked you "What "intriguing, substantive, and legitimate" questions does the ad raise?" and you cut that part out of the same reply in which you ask for evidence that you ignore stuff like that in favor of political campaign chatter.
I'd suggest that speaking for the Org as a whole is a dicey bit of business, which you'll probably want to retract or "clarify," not to mention the unintentional comedy factor of telling me my own motives. You do, in fact, appear to be rending your garments.
I'm describing the org in complimentary terms not speaking for them as a whole???
P.S.: Romney has updated his rhetoric (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/mitt-romney-osama-bin-laden-anniversary-barack-obama/1#.T6AYJutDwUU), recognizing a losing fight for what is is. Might want to adjust yours as well.
Why would I change what I'm saying because a political candidate did?
Mitt Romney today praised President Obama for giving the order to kill Osama bin Laden, a day after saying "even Jimmy Carter" would have done so.
"I commend all those who planned and conducted the bin Laden raid, and I applaud President Obama for giving the go-ahead for the mission," Romney said in a statement to mark the one-year anniversary of bin Laden's death.
Yeah, everyone is happy to applaud Obama for giving the go ahead. The argument comes about when he is trying to contrast himself. That argument is in the past now and he's hardly going to complain about it in his statement to mark the anniversary.
Going back to your response to Team Romney being the guiding light in the Detroit bailout:
Everyone agreed that GM and Chrysler needed restructuring; the question was how. Obama believed that the feds needed to be involved, Romney did not, and writes about finding private investors. Economists then and now pointed out that private investors were running scared, and that delaying everything to find them would result in an unstructured bankruptcy for two of the big three American automakers. Details (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/a-short-history-of-mitt-romneys-views-on-the-detroit-bailout/256513/):
The major questions here are (1) whether it was feasible for the companies to find private financing to restructure and (2) whether the associated job loss and economic ripple effects would have been acceptable. While Romney is correct that the restructuring was what he suggested, his idea at the time was hardly unique; there was a consensus that the companies needed to be significantly reshaped. The question was how to do it, and he said the answer was without federal funds.
Yeah, that's similar to what I read. And the other article I read was about the non-union employees getting shafted as a result of the plan which supposedly benefited the unions too much, which I assume is Romney's objection. Not seeing the "flip-flopping on every major issue" G-cube.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-02-2012, 07:15
Personally it just seems like the Republicans are crying foul because they don't have any sort of counter or spin. Usually when someone makes a claim, it's easy for the other to construct a spin and turn t around on the other guy. How can you spin this against Obama? Well, other than complaining about being unfair. But then again, Bush himself said that he honestly didn't care where OBL was after Tora Bora. Something along the lines of "He's not important."
Honestly, the Republican PR machine has been dropping the ball recently. They lost the War on Women, and now their defense with OBL is McCain saying, "Well, the thing about heros, is that they don't brag."
Uh huh, thanks John McCain, I'm sure you have followed that advice.
Maybe you can explain it too me.
The ad overdramatizes the obama decision, and then dishonestly quotes romney out of context to claim that he wouldn't have made the call. It's obviously a bad ad, there's little to say about the ad. About obama, we could talk about how good he's been at anti-terror during his presidency, how willing to use the drone strikes. About romney, we could speculate about what his overall strategy would have been/will be. We could talk about many substantial things, so why would we ever talk about either parties PR machine? I thought generally how it went was "campaign ad gets posted, orgahs criticize whatever it is that the ad distorts, talk about something substantial".
eh, nevermind. It's not like I don't comprehend being partisan and "fighting the good fight" or whatever, so really I'm just complaining about it in overly-large posts. I'd be better off reading up on unions and the detroit bailout.
Its not like anyone votes on the issues anyway. Even on these hallowed forums, most of you have decided which side of the fence you want to be on and focus more on attempting to discredit the other side than build up any kind of meaningful platform. We should all be swing voters, but the truth is that most of you aren't and never will be. You've made your choice.
None of it is worth taking seriously until voters are willing to abandon both parties for alternatives that actually stick to their guns and support issues with conviction.
Its a joke. Just don't vote.
overly cynical :shrug:
I read the other day that some of the wikileaks information could have let al quaida know that we were on to osama's hideout if it had been noticed. I also saw a bit of a speech by Paul where he called manning a patriot and a true american hero. He's not being marginalized unfairly, you guys just need a better libertarian candidate. Although I really think libertarianism is not a good stand alone political philosophy, it's too cut and dry which is the only reason libertarians tend to have such conviction.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-02-2012, 07:37
-meant to be an edit of the above-
Chance of being sure we got osama with the bomb = 0?? That math?
Feh. Everyone seems very positive post facto that the call made was the obvious call. At absolute minimum, this is convenient.
Hopefully constructive criticism. Think we had the same talk in the trayvon thread.
Your "constructive criticism" doesn't seem terribly constructive from this end. Do I talk about politics in terms of gamesmanship and mechanics? Sure. It's one perspective, one way of looking at the contest. Does that necessarily mean that I do not, as you imply, understand right and wrong, or see some things as inherently better than others? Your criticism amounts to "you talk about the mechanics, not right and wrong," and you posit this as some great insight. As is your custom, you constellate yourself as somehow outside and above the discussion, meta-commenting on the comments, passing judgment, offering your unique brand of "constructive criticism." If someone positioned themselves in such a lofty manner, then told you that the way you discuss is wrong, do you think you would find it "constructive"? 'Cause it reads more as "mind-numbingly pompous" from here.
I pointed out that you focus on the campaign fodder instead of just looking at things in terms of good or bad
And I would point out that your choice of subject matter follows predictably partisan trends. But hey, by all means, tell me I shouldn't be talking for another three pages. It goes well with my morning cup of joe. (An interesting double-bind you propose: If I talk about mechanics, I'm ignoring right and wrong. If I come down in favor of someone, I'm being a horrible partisan. So by your cul-de-sac of thinking, I suppose I should just be silent and let my betters talk? Again, feh.)
I'm describing the org in complimentary terms not speaking for them as a whole???
Read your own words, friend. You positioned yourself as spokesman for the Org, all so that you can tell me how inappropriate you think my posts are. It was a big stretch for a small poke.
Why would I change what I'm saying because a political candidate did?
Because wittingly or not, you have been repeating the party line, and the party line has changed.
-edit-
Bombing is higher risk to all levels involved except to US special forces servicemen.
Claro que si, but risk to servicemen is typically at the top of the list for concerns. Violating sovereignty is another biggie. Hence the fact that the majority of our GWOT (outside of certain countries such as Afghanistan) appears to be fielded by drones. Everyone can tell me that the operation to take out OBL was pedestrian, obvious and unremarkable all they like, but it doesn't smack of truth.
Meanwhile, here's the latest SuperPAC ad. (Oh noes! I'm not saying if it's right or wrong! I must have no moral center! But wait, if I do comment, then I'm being a partisan attack dog! Oh, if only there were some meta-conversational referee to tell me how to type!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4uTKnhjH1M
HopAlongBunny
05-02-2012, 15:10
Its not like anyone votes on the issues anyway.
Mainly because issues are absent from political discourse at election time. Personal attacks and fear mongering seem to have become the norm for electioneering in North America.
Personal attacks and fear mongering seem to have become the norm for electioneering in North America.
Don't forget the well-established trend of people voting against their own economic self-interest (http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/11/04/why-vote/), as well. So even when policy issues are raised, the voters' reactions to them are unpredictable. That's why politics seems more art than science to this lemur.
HopAlongBunny
05-02-2012, 15:45
That's why politics seems more art than science to this lemur.
And that art would be? Marketing? It seems the baser the instinct you can appeal to the more likely you are to motivate someone...Maslow's hierarchy perhaps? And of course "branding", never lose sight of the brand.
Strike For The South
05-02-2012, 15:48
Turned around dozens of companies LOLZ
And that art would be? Marketing?
I don't mean "art" as in a comparison to Mozart or Picasso; rather, in the same sense that war is sometimes referred to as "art," since it cannot be boiled down into a science (with predictable, repeatable hypotheses and testing). While there are some truisms in politics, seems to me that a lot of it is unpredictable and difficult to quantify. Hence the obscenely high wages paid to the consultants who claim they can boil it down to numbers. And just as predictably, how often those consultants are proven wrong (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1891723,00.html) (but still want to get paid). So yeah, on an art/science axis, I think politics falls into the touchy-feely realm more than STEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields).
How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding? The only thing I can find says slightly greater than 0.01% for the 2008 presidential election, no details on if this includes primaries and such. I'm curious how much of our total economic output is wasted switching between the puppet on the left and puppet on the right.
How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding?
I seem to recall reading (http://books.google.com/books?id=LkQPOSXMUscC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=elections+cost+chewing+gum&source=bl&ots=4pOkI7nsET&sig=ENqr6cqQi6Y34RlCkog-eXIO0mQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u16hT4ObBoXA8ASOxq26CA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=elections%20cost%20chewing%20gum&f=false) that the aggregate cost of a presidential election is equivalent to half the amount spent nationally on chewing gum in one year.
Same book estimates total cost of all federal elections at roughly $1b.
-edit-
This (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_mo_mone_1.html) might be helpful ... he even tries to factor in lobbying costs ...
gaelic cowboy
05-02-2012, 17:21
Turned around dozens of companies LOLZ
Sure he is only telling the truth Strike didnt he turn them right round into the scrap heap.:yes:
gaelic cowboy
05-02-2012, 17:30
How much of our GDP is spent on elections/campaign funding? The only thing I can find says slightly greater than 0.01% for the 2008 presidential election, no details on if this includes primaries and such. I'm curious how much of our total economic output is wasted switching between the puppet on the left and puppet on the right.
I wouldnt say it's a lot or even significant at all in fact I would be more inclined to think it's a slight boost to certain local economies.
since elections cant be outsourced at least not yet
a completely inoffensive name
05-02-2012, 18:10
Maybe you can explain it too me.Sure!
Eh, nevermind....ok. :'(
PanzerJaeger
05-02-2012, 22:18
The unfortunate reality of being a gay conservative in America has manifested (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/02/conservative-radio-host-high-fives-romney-campaign-for-canning-gay-adviser) once again.
The recent departure of an openly gay foreign policy adviser and communications hand from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has left many in political circles scratching their heads, but one conservative radio host is praising the move as a win for American families.
Ric Grenell, who served as foreign policy spokesman in President George W. Bush's administration, was recently hired by Romney and according to the campaign, was officially scheduled to begin work May 1. But when Tuesday came, Grenell voluntarily stepped down from his position.
According to a statement released to the Washington Post, it was because he felt the pushback from conservative groups regarding his sexual orientation and his advocacy for gay marriage rendered him ineffective.
...
Bryan Fischer, issue director at the American Family Association, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage, bragged about his role in the episode.
"It's very clear from the Washington Post that he resigned because of pressure that was put on the Romney campaign by the pro-family community," he said on his radio show, Focal Point. "So ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge win, and it's a huge win for us in regard to Mitt Romney, because Mitt Romney has been forced to say, 'Look, I overstepped my bounds here, I went outside my parameters here, I went off the reservation with this hire, the pro-family community has called me back to the table here, called me back inside the borders of the reservation.'"
Fischer then boasted, "There is no way in the world that Mitt Romney is going to put a homosexual activist in any position of importance in his campaign."
It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do. Romney is no gay hater, but he apparently feels the need to keep the gay haters appeased - which is another unfortunate reality of contemporary GOP politics.
Kralizec
05-02-2012, 22:54
It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do. Romney is no gay hater, but he apparently feels the need to keep the gay haters appeased - which is another unfortunate reality of contemporary GOP politics.
Wouldn't the right thing be talking him into staying on the team? That is, if his sexuality was the main reason behind his resignation.
The only thing I've read about it (in Dutch sources) say that he resigned because he made some nasty remarks about several people he later regretted. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-is-richard-grenell/2012/04/24/gIQA9xnleT_blog.html)
It would have been nice to see Romney stand up and defend this guy, especially since he bothered to hire him. It would have shown leadership and independence from the far Right as he moves into the general and, coincidentally, it would have been the right thing to do.
At first I thought he was sidelined because of his Twitter feed, but it looks as though you are correct, and his gayness (specifically, his advocacy for gay marriage) was the issue.
Early reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/politics/richard-grenell-resigns-from-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-team.html) suggests that Team Romney thought they could just lay low, keep Grenell quiet, and it would blow over.
As the critiques from conservatives intensified, Mr. Grenell pressed senior aides to allow him to speak about national security issues, arguing that the best way to soothe the ire over his appointment would be to let him do his job: defend his boss and take swipes at President Obama.
But Mr. Romney’s advisers balked at the idea of his taking a public role, saying that the best way to get beyond the controversy was for Mr. Grenell to lower his profile until it blew over. A big worry: that reporters would ask Mr. Grenell about his Twitter feed or sexuality, turning him rather than Mr. Romney’s foreign policy into the story. [...]
[T]he final straw, for Mr. Grenell, was the conference call on April 26. After being told not to speak, he felt deeply undermined, worrying it would erode his credibility with journalists who had expected to hear from him, friends said. [...]
The day after the call, complaints from the religious right picked up steam. In the National Review on April 27, Matthew J. Franck wrote: “Whatever fine record he compiled in the Bush administration, Grenell is more passionate about same-sex marriage than anything else.”
“So here’s a thought experiment,” he continued. “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?”
Over the past weekend, Mr. Grenell sent word to Mr. Williamson and Mr. Fehrnstrom that his position was untenable. He planned to resign.
All this says is that the Republican nominee and his advisors have decided that gay rights have no place in their would-be administration.
Well, it's a little bit unusual. Reagan and both Bushes had prominent gays in their administrations. (Not sure who was out at the time, though.)
I think it speaks to the rightwing's lack of sureness about Romney. GWB could have as many gay people as he liked, because he had born-again cred.
PanzerJaeger
05-03-2012, 20:48
At first I thought he was sidelined because of his Twitter feed, but it looks as though you are correct, and his gayness (specifically, his advocacy for gay marriage) was the issue.
Yes, it is kind of sad. The Romney people stood firmly behind Grenell and pushed back hard against the Twitter mini-scandal, pretty much keeping in the lefty blogosphere and out of the papers (WaPo being the exception). When the gay haters got wind of the hire, though, he was immediately sidelined.
Maybe it's also that times are changing. In the days of Reagan and the Bushes, prominent gay advisers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman) were expected to be (and agreed to be) closeted, at least until they left the WH. In this day and age, it's hard to imagine top-flight talent (that happens to be gay) putting up with that.
Law of unintended consequences: More out gays means less opportunity to serve in prominent GOP positions? Or something. I haven't given this a whole load of thought.
And you're right, I remember reading that the guy had a long Twitter trail, which he erased, and that was about it. None of it made major news.
Strike For The South
05-04-2012, 15:42
Ah yes pushing the homosexual agenda from the forigen policy circles
PanzerJaeger
05-04-2012, 23:28
And the just-as-inevitable response re: the OBL ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JsrSAqRrCc0
It's pretty standard partisan stuff, but it did highlight one thing in the Clinton ad that I completely missed at 35 seconds in. "Suppose the Navy Seals had gone in there... suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him."
In passing it just sounds like they are spiking the football. When you really think about the mindset behind that statement, though, it is pretty galling even for election year politics and reveals a kind of selfish arrogance that has characterized this presidency.
Sasaki Kojiro
05-04-2012, 23:43
The clipping "I..." quotes doesn't jive with the tone of my memory of that speech. iirc there's some idea that obama uses "I" more than other presidents, but I read a debunking of it. The "for him" statement is just the ad script, it doesn't say that obama cares more about the politics than the lives of the seals. The one thing I heard that did concern me was that the white house has been leaking way more details about how the seal teams operate than the military would like.
a completely inoffensive name
05-07-2012, 07:57
So uh....apparently the Ron Paul machine is working hard on getting its followers to take the majority of delegate spots in Nevada and Maine. Which they did. The plan apparently is that there is precedent for bound delegates to abstain, so if they get enough of Romney's delegates, they can abstain, force a brokered convention and then on the second voting round many of them are open to vote for who they please.
For the sake of the comedy that will pour out from late night comedians, I hope this actually happens even though I know it won't.
And now to the gloating (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-romney-stand-up-to-north-korea-pushed-around-yokel-like-me): one of the primary figures on the far-right who pushed for Grenell's firing/resignation is now declaring, "If Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, coopted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin? How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I don’t think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership."
Lovely. So Romney gives this buffoon what he wants, and the ungrateful little homunculous turns around and makes it into an argument for why Romney can't be President. Someone explain the logic of this to me, 'cause it looks insane from where I'm standing.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/somemenjustwanttowatchtheworldburntinkywinky.jpg
Tellos Athenaios
05-07-2012, 21:16
On the contrary, I think this is actually sane. Just because it may or may not have been wrapped up in a saga made of assorted right wing drivel/nonsense/rants/insanity/take-your-pick doesn't mean the basic point still stands:
Mitt Romney doesn't have $0.02 worth of intellectual effort put into coming up with an actual real policy "line". So if you are Republican and looking to further presumed Republican values, what use is electing a pushover who will be bullied into bending over backwards by pretty much anyone?
The concern isn't the Chinese (or shouldn't be), in the sense that he isn't going to be bullied into doing the Chinese bidding (his past suggests he is actually going to believe it's all for the best to let the Chinese do their thing, you know free markets and stuff, and maybe he could be right on that issue to boot). The concern is what will be left of Romney promises to the Republican voter base after the first slaughterhouse round against actual politicians (not merely power brokers) who know how to play the media?
Mitt Romney would make a fine Congressional aide, but he lacks the sharp cutting edge of a campaigner politician -- even by boring Dutch standards.
I don't agree with this article, but am reposting a bit for the most epic use of Bangkok in an analogy (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/is-this-the-most-boring-election-ever-20120507) ever.
But this campaign, relatively speaking, will not be fierce or hotly contested. Instead it'll be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like a hand job in a Bangkok bathhouse. And everybody knows it. It's just impossible to take Mitt Romney seriously as a presidential candidate. Even the news reporters who are paid to drum up dramatic undertones are having a hard time selling Romney as half of a titanic title bout.
And now there's Bullygate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html). We're going back to high school for scandals? Really? Why stop there? Why not scrutinize their pre-K and Kindergarten records? Let's see if there are any fetal scandals they might have had in utero!
Maybe this will, in fact, be the most boring election in the history of mankind.
Lovely. So Romney gives this buffoon what he wants, and the ungrateful little homunculous turns around and makes it into an argument for why Romney can't be President. Someone explain the logic of this to me, 'cause it looks insane from where I'm standing.
it's right wing talk-radio. isn´t insane par for the course?
Ironside
05-11-2012, 20:31
And now there's Bullygate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html). We're going back to high school for scandals? Really? Why stop there? Why not scrutinize their pre-K and Kindergarten records? Let's see if there are any fetal scandals they might have had in utero!
Maybe this will, in fact, be the most boring election in the history of mankind.
It's probably light dirt following Obama's support for same sex unions. Heavy stuff is saved for later. Or the election will be boring (or normal depending on how you meassure).
It's probably light dirt following Obama's support for same sex unions. Heavy stuff is saved for later.
Maybe, but I don't think the ebb-and-flow is quite that orchestrated. Seems more like everybody's reacting to the latest brush fire and running around screaming. If you believe what you read, Team Obama wanted to spend this week talking economy and student loans, and wound up being nothing but gay gay gay. Meanwhile Team Romney also wanted to talk economy, and wound up with Bullygate.
I think there's a reason campaigns are so big about "staying on message." It's really hard to do ...
Ironside
05-12-2012, 09:13
Maybe, but I don't think the ebb-and-flow is quite that orchestrated. Seems more like everybody's reacting to the latest brush fire and running around screaming. If you believe what you read, Team Obama wanted to spend this week talking economy and student loans, and wound up being nothing but gay gay gay. Meanwhile Team Romney also wanted to talk economy, and wound up with Bullygate.
I think there's a reason campaigns are so big about "staying on message." It's really hard to do ...
Since it's well researched I considered it to be more or less done and planned to be used together with the planned announcement, since it's expected effect would simply be to pull out an apology from Mitt and not much more. It's not that big outside getting a minor label of "secretly hating gays" on Romney by itself, so it can only be used for that.
With the high age (Mitt was 18-19) it might've been milked for more,
but the: "you I know I don't really remember the "prank" where I criminally assulted someone badly enough to give my fellow companions a minor trauma over the issue" is not a sign of a good character or that years of life experience have improved that character. And that falls fully on Romney, but that couldn't be predicted.
Pretty good take (http://www.businessinsider.com/only-mitt-romney-can-stave-off-a-new-debt-ceiling-fiasco-2012-5#ixzz1ufrWQtqw), since Repubs generally lower taxes and raise spending once in power:
If Romney wins, not only will taxes stay low, Republicans will drop their opposition to government spending and deficits. That's because parties in power always support higher deficits and spending. It's just what they do.
We'd love to hear someone say with a straight face that Republicans, if given full power, would seriously stick to their principles of limiting government. Opposing deficits is strictly the purview of the opposition party.
So the Keynesian choice is Romney.
Eerily accurate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkoRpU64tI
PanzerJaeger
05-15-2012, 02:00
Not only is this true of both parties, but it is (if I may say so myself) the defining characteristic of the Republican Party during my life-time. From Reagan to Bush Jr. the Republicans are the big government, pro-interventionist, increase-the-debt party. By comparison, Clinton and Obama have been responsible for mostly slashing the hell out of the military.
No one remembers GHWB. :shame:
ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2012, 02:04
Eerily accurate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkoRpU64tI
That movie looks awesome. He just punched a baby
gaelic cowboy
05-15-2012, 09:43
No one remembers GHWB. :shame:
I remember in some ways he was more embarrassing than his son and he was more remote than Tristan Da Cunha.
No one remembers GHWB. :shame:
Indeed, 41 was probably the best president of my lifetime. Tried to do what was right, not just whatever he needed to get reelected. Shame what came out of his loins though.
The White House's official website has biographies (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents) for all past presidents. Obama has stuck his name into every single one since Coolidge.
Here's the addendum for Reagan:
President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.
In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.
Obama has stuck his name into every single one since Coolidge.
I doubt he did that personally; more likely some overzealous copywriter/flack went a bit gonzo. I expect the site will be toned down shortly.
In the meantime, have fun (http://obamainhistory.tumblr.com/)!
ICantSpellDawg
05-16-2012, 02:49
I doubt he did that personally; more likely some overzealous copywriter/flack went a bit gonzo. I expect the site will be toned down shortly.
In the meantime, have fun (http://obamainhistory.tumblr.com/)!
I have immediately enposted this to my interwebs
Tellos Athenaios
05-16-2012, 09:37
Clearly, Obama is a time lord.
Clearly, Obama is Sarkozy.
I love The Onion so damn much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJreyDEqqY
ICantSpellDawg
05-23-2012, 03:49
Does anybody feel like the Obama campaign has spun off the rails this week? The media/democratic onslaught has started in full effect, but the discussion of Bain is not going over well on TV or the internet. Obama supporters are showing themselves to be petty, draconian and anti-capitalist - which may or may not be true. We've got the Rolling Stones ripping on Romney, Obama ripping on him from the NATO forum, a teacher screaming at a student and threatening him with jail, Mayor Booker being held hostage for a retractile clip, Chris Matthews angrily trying to tell Booker how to be a better Obama surrogate, Powell refusing to endorse Obama yet. The sycophancy is becoming weird.
This week has been terrible for the campaign and it was supposed to be terrible for Romney. What do you think happened?
PanzerJaeger
05-23-2012, 05:52
Heh, the whole Booker affair has been most enjoyable. He pretty much invalidated the Obama campaign's entire line of attack against Bain, point by point. I especially liked his comments about having to cut jobs as mayor to keep government functional. His defense of Bain was better than anything the Romney people have put out so far.
If I had to guess as to why the anti-Bain rollout is flailing out of the gate and experiencing so much pushback, even from Obama surrogates, I would suggest that the fundamental message they are pushing transcends party lines and offends Americans of all types on a deeper level. America, for better or worse, is still very much the home of unabashed, unashamed, free market capitalism. It is in our blood - a major part of the 'American Spirit'. It is the reason we stood alone for so long as the only nation in the developed world without socialized healthcare (and why a majority of us still do not want it), but it is also the reason why we have an insanely high GDP even after our near complete deindustrialization.
The GOP is more overtly pro-business while the Democrats feign a kind of populism-lite, but both parties (and the vast majority of Americans) share a mutual respect and admiration for wealth creation and success in industry. Even after the Wall Street financial crisis, polls show Americans still are still overwhelmingly positive towards the rich. The kind of cynical attacks on Romney's success in business that Obama has been peddling are not only offensive, but deeply un-American. Americans are comfortable with vicious attacks on the candidate's personal lives, past associations, and any number of random, distorted, and seemingly meaningless assertions about nearly every aspect of their lives since birth, but attacking someone for being successful and making buckets of money just does not sit well.
ICantSpellDawg
05-23-2012, 11:09
I like Cory Booker. He reminds me of a third way politician. He's most likely gay, has no established position on abortion, gets along well with the Republican gov of his state, defends private equity, has a good sense of humor. He is going places in the new political culture. I may not ever vote for him, but hes going to have a good run. All I require though, to vote for a politician, is that they at least recognize that the abortion issue is not a simple one and needs serious caution due to the destruction of human life and the protection of the rights of the woman over her own body. Ill listen to whatever you have to say after then, but you wont get past the door if you cant aknowledge that basic reality. My own litmus test
ICantSpellDawg
05-24-2012, 01:34
As I've said before, he knows how to create wealth for the owner/investor class. We are the owner/investor class in the U.S.A. We are not employees of our government. We would be well serves with a guy like Mitt in the White House
gaelic cowboy
05-24-2012, 10:55
As I've said before, he knows how to create wealth for the owner/investor class. We are the owner/investor class in the U.S.A. We are not employees of our government. We would be well serves with a guy like Mitt in the White House
:laugh4:
I hope you mean served as in served on a plate for the rampant appetites of Gordon Gekko types in Wall Street.
They destroyed more jobs through overfinalcialisation of your economy which ultimately required a bailout.
And the big laugh is there not lieing when they say that if they hadnt got a bailout things would be worse than now. It's plainly obvious these finacial types know sweet :daisy: all about business.
Also the idea that America is really America INC and requires a CEO to run it from the White House is silly.
Major Robert Dump
05-29-2012, 17:26
I don't see how what Romeny did was any worse than giving money hand-over-fist to Green Energy companies that go belly up. Solandra was just the tip of the iceberg, and as I understand it, virtually all those companies were Obama cronies.
Happens in politics, got it, been there done that. But what Romney did is no worse, in fact, you could argue that at least he doesn't steal from the taxpayers.
But hey, Obama walks on water as far as his supporters are concerned. Thats party politics, yo
I don't see how what Romeny did was any worse than giving money hand-over-fist to Green Energy companies that go belly up. Solandra was just the tip of the iceberg, and as I understand it, virtually all those companies were Obama cronies.Listen to Jay Carney explain the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nCMNcV8hZvw
:dizzy2:
Meanwhile, silly season (http://gizmodo.com/5914154/mitt-romneys-new-app-misspells-america-twitter-goes-wild) continues. Apparently Team Romney's iPhone app misspells America. In a graphic. OH THE HUMANITY!
a completely inoffensive name
05-30-2012, 19:01
What's the point of linking to such stupid things. I would rather have the thread die than generate conversation on things not in any way important.
What's the point of linking to such stupid things. I would rather have the thread die than generate conversation on things not in any way important.
Stuff like this just illustrates how insanely stupid this whole race has been. We may as well elect Zaphod come November.
Birthers for the win... (http://leftaction.com/action/mitt-romney-unicorn)
What's the point of linking to such stupid things. I would rather have the thread die than generate conversation on things not in any way important.I wish such inconsequential things were ignored- but they're not. I was watching local news at the gym today and they ran this story.
C'mon guys are you all really that blind? The morman prophet and wall street are the ones pulling the strings behind Romney's candidacy. Spelling America "Amercia" might seem like a simple typo, nothing to worry about, but it's really something more sinister. It was a freudian slip that betrayed Romney's true intentions: to create an un-christian corporate funded morman theocracy. The truth couldn't be more obvious.
Major Robert Dump
05-31-2012, 02:04
Originally Romney was going to buy America, cash out all her liquid assets, and fire everyone, making off with the dough. Then he realized that would make him like $7, so now he is bent on reshaping america in the image of BYU so he can get a bigger planet from Xenu
a completely inoffensive name
05-31-2012, 02:31
I am even more distrustful of Romney after reading "A Study in Scarlet". Poor Jefferson Hope.
I think things like the iPhone app and Polandgate (http://triblive.com/usworld/world/1888351-74/obama-poland-polish-death-camps-president-tusk-nazi-war-german) illustrate how thin the campaign is right now. It truly is silly season. Will this whole thing get more substantive? Maybe. Possibly.
Oh, and Fox and Friends ran a 4-minute attack ad (http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-barack-obama-attack-ad-2012-5) against the Prez, claiming it was journalism. Network sorta-kinda apologized. Meh. Nothing to see here, really.
-edit-
Also note that Willard Mittington Romney's newly released birth certificate (http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-finally-releases-his-own-certificate-of-live-birth-2012-5) is just a "certificate of live birth," which is a completely different thing, according to the internets. Also it does not say he is not a unicorn. I SMELL CONSPIRACY.
I think things like the iPhone app and Polandgate (http://triblive.com/usworld/world/1888351-74/obama-poland-polish-death-camps-president-tusk-nazi-war-german) illustrate how thin the campaign is right now. It truly is silly season. Will this whole thing get more substantive? Maybe. Possibly.Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business". I'm not really expecting anything interesting in this campaign until the debates. ~:handball:
Since you brought it up, Polandgate is a little more noteworthy than a typo in an iPhone app that no one uses. This was an amateurish mistake by a speechwriter that has managed to offend an important ally. They'll get over it, but it was a gaffe.
a completely inoffensive name
06-01-2012, 07:12
Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).
Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business".
Yeah, as ACIN points out, Obama has plenty of record. And Romney has a record as governor; both men are perfectly capable of having a substantive debate.
However, we are in silly season, and the points being made and campaign videos are all yawners, or unintentionally hilarious.
For reasons I cannot explain, this seems more relevant (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6776991/pulling-out-of-iraq-with-patrick-warburton-and-ken-davitian) than any campaign video so far.
a completely inoffensive name
06-01-2012, 08:20
Silly season gets longer each election. Eventually, if the trend continues (and if we aren't already there), substantive debates and hard numbers won't even enter into the equation.
I really don't think that substantive debates and hard numbers have even entered politics since 9/11. I have watched the youtube videos of the 2000 debates, and I would have voted for Bush Jr. if I could have back then, he made a lot of sense on the campaign trail. Then the 2004 debates which I watched first hand I remember being part of the decade long (and counting) blur of "FEAR! FEAR! 9/11! TERRORIST SLEEP CELLS! NEED MORE TSA! I'M MORE PATRIOTIC!"
Substantive debate don't involve closing your ears and shouting LALALALA when someone questions the war on drugs. Hard numbers don't involve McCarthy-lite accusations when someone brings up the fact that the billions spent on TSA security have resulted in zero terrorists being caught at the scanner stations.
9/11 extended the silly season to be all year long and now we are living in an alternate reality that people have been conforming to, not rejecting.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk
Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high (http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)... what am I missing?
a completely inoffensive name
06-02-2012, 01:57
Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.
I enjoyed it when the woman said that young people who just graduated with $30,000+ in student loan debt should be making their own jobs, forming their own businesses. Because it's so easy to create a start up when you have to be making $800 payments every month starting as soon as you get your piece of paper. But then again, it wasn't as if the previous generation were able to get cushy, lifelong, union jobs with only a high school diploma. I don't want to come across as generational bashing, because I don't think any generation is to blame, but something is amiss there.
What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high (http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)... what am I missing?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.
Obamacare (such a stupid name btw)
In fairness, Obamacare is the slang term, not the proper name, just as Romneycare isn't really Romneycare. I think Obamacare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act) is actually PPACA, or more often just ACA. Romneycare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Background) is "An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care" to its friends.
People call it "Romneycare" or "Obamacare" as a diminution, which I think should be embraced. Much like John Wheeler with the term "Black Hole," the insult becomes a rather catchy name.
Who is Obamacare unpopular with? You? People in red-state strongholds? Most people who vote democrat (roughly half the damned country, amirite?) want some kind of universal healthcare system, and would gladly prop up Obamacare (such a stupid name btw) as the first big step in the right direction.
A majority of Americans want it repealed (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law). Many of his own supporters don't even like it- many do. But they don't really matter because they'll vote for him either way. Independents also favor repeal of the mandate (24%) or all of it (46%). That doesn't make for a good campaign platform.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.I don't have the time or inclination to vet that entire list- but man are they being charitable towards Obama. Many of them read to the effect "well, he hasn't actually followed thru completely, but we'll call it a promise kept anyhow." Contrast that with this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/690/boehner-will-fly-commercial/) check of a promise by Boehner where all their evidence indicates he kept the promise, but it gets an "In Progress" rating.
Here's another gem I saw: Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/135/increase-the-size-of-the-army-and-marine-corps/)
Meanwhile, there is a plan to shrink to 186,800 Marines at the end of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan, Wolf said.
But Obama said nothing about keeping the higher levels indefinitely. We rate this a Promise Kept.
So he's actually going to cut the size of the military- but screw it, 'promise kept!' :dizzy2:
Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.
a completely inoffensive name
06-02-2012, 04:20
stuff
Ehh, you are being disingenuous here. The point wasn't the validity of politifact, the point was that he can make statements about following through on many promises, because whether they are substantiated or not, there are articles that would support said statements. Bold faced lies generally are exposed sooner or later in a general election and often trying to redefine the words/meaning of your original statement makes you look even worse "What is the definition of "is"?"
You are not really contesting my point that he could run on a lot of things, you are just expressing your dissatisfaction with everything that he did. Case in point the fact that just because left leaning and right leaning people don't like Obamacare, doesn't translate into "neither group will be voting for obama". Progressives will still vote Dem because the changes Obamacare made had some steps forwards as well as steps backward whereas they 'know' that under Romney it would all be steps backwards.
Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.
This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.
PanzerJaeger
06-04-2012, 05:57
This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.
Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.
It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.
a completely inoffensive name
06-04-2012, 07:57
Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.
It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.
Sure. By trying to spin Obamacare into a winner (which in many ways I think it is), he is putting all his chips into one hand. By diversifying he can get together a strong coalition without agitating the GOP base. Obamacare was obviously the number 1 thing on the tip of every GOP candidates mouth during the debates. By spreading himself out over a bunch of different, perhaps small accomplishments and refusing to battle it out over Obamacare, the word then just becomes a talking point by the GOP and not something to fight over as long as Obama doesn't fight over it too much.
To put it in another way Obama is (or should be) trying to throw everything he can at the wall to see what sticks, a couple things will and he can run with those. The GOP it seems wants to rely on one or two things that look like sure things (Obamacare and the economy). But by restricting themselves to those two, it helps Obama dismantle their position and by Obama focusing on a plethora of other subjects he doesn't put himself at the same risk. If people somehow manage to get tired of Romney talking about Bain Capital and want something else out of him, it will be a lot harder for Romney to change gears because he has built nearly his entire persona around being a businessman.
I disagree that the Dems have been trying to spin Obamacare. It seems obvious to me that up until this month Obama has been more than happy to remain silent while the GOP candidates make themselves look like fools. Because the spotlight was solely on the GOP for the past 6 months, it's no surprise that 6 months of hearing the GOP saying "Repeal Obamacare." will have people echoing the sentiment. Once Obama goes into full swing over this coming month, we will actually see what spins the Democrats have in store.
It's one thing to disrupt your opponent's events with paid hecklers. Admitting it (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/01/romney-brags-that-yes-he-sent-hecklers/), however, is insane.
Axelrod and others immediately accused the Mitt Romney campaign of organizing and orchestrating the disruption using paid Romney staffers.
That seemed unlikely. At least, it seemed unlikely until Romney admitted it:
“Most of the events I go to, or many of the events I go to, there are large groups of, if you will, Obama supporters there heckling me,” Romney told the press. “And at some point you say, ‘You know what, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.’ If they’re going to be heckling us, why we’re not going to sit back and play by very different rules. If the president is going to have his people coming to my rallies, and heckling, why, we’ll show them that, you know, we conservatives have the same kind of capacity he does.”
Asked for evidence that the Obama campaign is sending hecklers to Romney events, Romney staffers identified an incident at a New York City firehouse in which a press conference with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was interrupted by heckling.
That incident in New York was indeed regrettable.
However, the sole rude and vulgar heckler turned out to be an Occupy Wall Street activist who had heard about the event and hustled over to interrupt it. What she did was way out of line, but there is no evidence whatsoever tying her to the Obama campaign or organization.
ICantSpellDawg
06-06-2012, 01:47
So what? He's telling the truth, those people heckled axlerod. I'm sure they were Romney supporters who eat food, drink liquid and have friends and family. Axlerod was there to campaign for the admin. I'm sure that was planned.
What are you accusing them of? Effective organization of a counter rally which caused your opponent to stumble like an idiot?
Could "the private sector's doing fine" be the "read my lips" of this election cycle? The chessmaster (Obama) really stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment- expect to see it replayed often throughout the campaign....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JwsHRHPcSSU
Centurion1
06-12-2012, 02:40
The largest components of the private sector are doing just fine. Its small-businesses that are suffering, for the same reasons everyone else besides the largest components of the private sector are suffering.
On what basis would you suggest that? My portfolio cares to differ. Some companies are doing fine and others are wallowing in loss. Which creates a gran way for me to get rich and get my Foot in the door of a lot of Blue chips I have no right to own but is bad for the country as a whole
Kadagar_AV
06-12-2012, 15:01
On what basis would you suggest that? My portfolio cares to differ. Some companies are doing fine and others are wallowing in loss. Which creates a gran way for me to get rich and get my Foot in the door of a lot of Blue chips I have no right to own but is bad for the country as a whole
<- this / people like him.
When people ask me why I am against the economical system we have at large.
Kralizec
06-12-2012, 19:34
Could "the private sector's doing fine" be the "read my lips" of this election cycle? The chessmaster (Obama) really stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment- expect to see it replayed often throughout the campaign....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JwsHRHPcSSU
Sounds more like a "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" kind of statement.
Centurion1
06-13-2012, 06:14
<- this / people like him.
When people ask me why I am against the economical system we have at large.
:rolleyes: ok bro. Sorry I'm a dirty capitalist pig using my own money to create a comfortable life for myself in the future. It's not hard to invest and it doesn't take as much money as people think. Nearly anyone can do it, it isn't my Fault people are too stupid to be able to do so. The issue with your little dream society and whatever flawed economic model you pine for is that simple fact. There are smart People and there are stupid people, neh.
But I digress I'm evil your a crusader of good. Oh and I'm also ignorant and misled, coolly wish I could quell my greedy Little heart by being happy as a ski instructor and children's teacher. Oh wait but I'm not.
Look across history and where you find success is where you find capitalism.
a completely inoffensive name
06-13-2012, 08:12
See you just come off as a pompous asshole when you call something you are good at as "easy" and then claim that people are just too stupid to do what you are doing. If they are too stupid then by definition it is hard for them to do it.
Also many people may not be suited for playing the stock market. Not everyone is good at one thing. You got a lot of growing up son.
Major Robert Dump
06-13-2012, 15:41
I would also beg to differ that it is really "your money" and more like "money that was given to you."
That, to me, is irrelvant, it's still money in your possession and you can do whatever you want with it. But please don't make it sound as if you have been slaving away for decades to build your investment capital when the real slaves were, in fact, your parents or grandparents.
I find it quite amusing that families with double earner incomes of 200k + lump themselves in the same "middle class" income bracket as a couple making a combined total of 80k. That is a huge discrepency. I actually lost friends in college over this, friends whose parents gave them everything and they didn't have to work, and then they insult me because I am a C student thanks to working 3 part time jobs to pay bills and tuition because of my parents lowly nurse+bakery owner income. The only reason I am bringing this up is because your statement that "it doesn't take as much money as you think" is totally subjective to your situation.
I also think Kadagars comments were a little harsh in singling you out, although at the heart of the matter US investment law is idiotic due to government employees being exempt from insider trading laws, and deep down inside I want it to collapse and ruin everyone involved..
Major Robert Dump
06-13-2012, 15:44
But back OT:
I see Obama's approval in the black community, particularly amongst evangelicals, has dipped significantly.
I never had any idea there were so many racist black people who hate black people. I mean, what other reason could there be?
Anyone who thinks there's movement in the race is fooling themselves. The polling is still quite stable (http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/104022/stable-race).
Despite what you might expect based on conventional wisdom, polling suggests that a tumultuous month has done little, if anything, to alter the contours of the race: Obama continues to hold a narrow but relatively consistent lead in polls of registered voters (RV), but Romney fares better in polls of likely voters (LV).
If you can see any clear trends, you should get your eyes checked. [...]
Why is the race so stable? For starters, the electorate is deeply polarized and there aren’t very many persuadable voters. Of course, many of those persuadable voters aren’t turned into the race. Most haven’t heard of Cory Booker, let alone care about his musings on Meet the Press. Obama’s comments about the state of the private sector may hurt him, but probably not until deployed aggressively by the Romney campaign.
The voters most likely to follow the intricacies of the race are also those most likely to have firmly made up their minds.
Major Robert Dump
06-13-2012, 16:41
Oh I don't think for a second that the opinion polls or anything else are accurate in portraying the election results. Just because his approval rating has dipped with one democraphic does not mean that demographic will not vote for him. I have absolutely no illusion that black evangelicals will vote for Romney, just like I have no illusions that white PaulBots will vote for Obama.
Oh I don't think for a second that the opinion polls or anything else are accurate in portraying the election results.
They're on measure, no more, no less. The most interesting stuff happens when people with a deep understanding of statistical math combine the polls with other interesting things like voter turnout historical maps and regression analysis. You know, Nate Silver's bag (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/).
But do I take any particular poll or aggregate of polls as predictive of an election months away? Of course not. What the stasis in the polls indicates to me is that the scandals and oopsies and storis of the day aren't getting any traction—right now. The vast majority of people just aren't paying attention yet.
Strike For The South
06-13-2012, 17:49
:rolleyes: ok bro. Sorry I'm a dirty capitalist pig using my own money to create a comfortable life for myself in the future. It's not hard to invest and it doesn't take as much money as people think. Nearly anyone can do it, it isn't my Fault people are too stupid to be able to do so. The issue with your little dream society and whatever flawed economic model you pine for is that simple fact. There are smart People and there are stupid people, neh.
But I digress I'm evil your a crusader of good. Oh and I'm also ignorant and misled, coolly wish I could quell my greedy Little heart by being happy as a ski instructor and children's teacher. Oh wait but I'm not.
.
Some people are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.
Look across history and where you find success is where you find capitalism
This statement means nothing. No one is talking about getting rid of private owned, for profit buisness. No one really ever does.
Major Robert Dump
06-13-2012, 18:41
They're on measure, no more, no less. The most interesting stuff happens when people with a deep understanding of statistical math combine the polls with other interesting things like voter turnout historical maps and regression analysis. You know, Nate Silver's bag (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/).
But do I take any particular poll or aggregate of polls as predictive of an election months away? Of course not. What the stasis in the polls indicates to me is that the scandals and oopsies and storis of the day aren't getting any traction—right now. The vast majority of people just aren't paying attention yet.
You miss understood me, and I wasn't all that clear.
I mentioned the lower approval rating amongst black voters. You mentioned the overall unchanging waters of the election polls. I thought perhaps you were suggesting that the lower approval ratings amongst blacks was irrelevant and not a good indication of eventual turnout, and I was agreeing with you.
Basically, don't mix opinion polls w/ issue polls with how-will-u-vote polls and think they are interchangable.
And aside from all this,
I was just wanting to make a funny
By pointing out that there were black voters who didn't approve of The Man
And henceforth were racist
I failed
I was just wanting to make a funny
By pointing out that there were black voters who didn't approve of The Man
And henceforth were racist
Yeah, I deliberately ignored that part, since the issue of racists, race-baiters, and "You're racist for seeing racism" counter-baiters and so on and so forth is pretty damn dull to me, and tends to excite a lot of ALL CAPS OUTRAGE.
Major Robert Dump
06-13-2012, 19:55
I AM OUTRAGE U IGNORZ ME
YOU'RE THE OUTRAGER FOR SEEING OUTRAGE YOU OUTRAGIST!
a completely inoffensive name
06-17-2012, 07:32
Call me when the GOP puts up someone who isn't a career politician that is so blatant with the evasions and patting himself on the back.
McCain I had respect for, if I could have voted in 2000 I would have ridden the Republican ticket on either him or Bush. 2008, Palin was the nail on the coffin but the man himself is still respectable in my eyes. Romney is a used car salesman.
BRING GOLDWATER BACK FROM THE DEAD.
Major Robert Dump
06-18-2012, 20:10
Obama is also a career politician, he is just younger and disguised his career well as a "community organizer", which the GOP used to try to discredit him as inexperienced (as if Palin was any better), but in the end both backfired on the GOP and made Obama look like an outsider, which he clearly is not. He is just different. A different group of careeer politicians in the white house.
I still fail to understand the Romney phenomenon. I find it incredible that through the entire ranks of the political party a guy as polarizing as he got the nomination, which to me just re-enforces my theory that primaries and delegates are all a sham and are all rigged. Just like GWB in 2000, when the GOP suddenly pulled support from McCain 75% through the primary. It's as if they had Romeny picked from the start. Everyone who ran against him was seriously a fringer or a moron with baggage of some sort. His VP candidate is going to be his saving grace, and when he does pick a VP, everyone is going to be like "so yeah why didnt he run for prez??" and I'll be all like "so yeah becoz Romney was teh chosen one"
Also, I think Bill Clinton secretly wants Obama to lose.
First off, they got screwed in the south with the BS race baiting claims, which hurt Hilary. 2nd, if Obama wins and Hilary runs she will be facing the George H Bush situation where it will be incredibly difficult for her to get a 2nd term because 12 years into a party rule she will be blamed for virtually everything even if she is actually doing a decent job, re GHB.
I think Hilary would have been a much better president than Obama, although I hate to see nepotism in government. As I recall, she basically did what Santorum did to Romney after he lost, Obama went from being Loser #1 to being our best hope in america. Giving her the SOS job was an olive branch for all the angries, may end up biting him in the butt. I think hilary has held back. Were she president, the mood in afghanistan would at least be different.
I'm rambling
ICantSpellDawg
06-18-2012, 20:47
Call me when the GOP puts up someone who isn't a career politician that is so blatant with the evasions and patting himself on the back.
Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth, has never been accused of a serious legal/ethical breach. He has and has raised an enormous, multi-generational, and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't benefit anyone except the mortally ill.
a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2012, 20:49
Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth has never been accused of breaking the law or cheating on his wife. He has and has raised an enormous and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't help anyone except the mortally ill.
The Cult of Romney personified. Where is that Goldwater quote about the religious killing the GOP by refusing to admit weakness or compromise.....
ICantSpellDawg
06-18-2012, 20:55
I'm definitely a Romney pusher. No problems with that label on my end. You're the one arguing for the resurrection of political figures whom you have nothing more than anecdotal knowledge of.
Major Robert Dump
06-18-2012, 22:24
The term "Career politician" is thrown around in political arguments just like "flip flopper" etc. It means nothing, and the people who say it are just filling space. Pretty much anyone in washington DC or in a governor/lt governor position is, by definition, a career politician because the system is built to benefit people in the circle.
Major Robert Dump
06-18-2012, 22:28
Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth, has never been accused of a serious legal/ethical breach. He has and has raised an enormous, multi-generational, and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't benefit anyone except the mortally ill.
Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism, like pretty much all religions, is ridonkulous, more so than the others.
I find it rich that the right tried to label Obama a "muslim" and now they are pushing a candidate who, were he a democrat, would get eaten alive by the evangelicals and catholic right.
I don't think anyone necessarily deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what silly cult they belong to, but in terms of OMG-this-is-whack factor, Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.
Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.
Unlike most other major religions, Mormonism has a hit musical dedicated to it right now. This factor alone means Romney will win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHEqCXY2B-w
PanzerJaeger
06-19-2012, 04:40
BRING GOLDWATER BACK FROM THE DEAD.
...who was utterly crushed by a career politician who would say or do anything to be president. He may have even had his predecessor killed for the chance.
I cannot remember a presidential candidate since Goldwater who did not pander. Reagan got close, but even he appeased his core constituencies when necessary - specifically the faux-militarism toward the Soviet Union all while signing away our nuclear stockpile. Courage of conviction has its place in the House, but not in a race to lead a pluralistic democracy. It just does not come with the job. You have to take too many positions on too many issues you simply do not care about. Most presidents come into office with two or three main objectives, the rest is just a combination of checking partisan boxes to maintain the support of the base and putting ones finger in the wind to gauge public opinion.
Romney is really no different than Bush or Obama in that respect, only he is attempting to win over two very different constituencies. Obviously, a Massachusetts Republican has to position him or herself much differently than those of other regions. Bush governed in Texas, so there was no break in continuity from conservative governor to conservative president. Obama hails from Chicago, so again, no continuity break from a liberal city/state to a liberal presidency. However, neither of the two believe half the crap they sold to their bases to get the nomination.
I kind of like Romney's blatant flip-flopping on the meaningless wedge issues only the extremists truly care about. It's like he's signaling to the rest of us that he's still the pragmatic technocrat he's always been.
I don't think anyone necessarily deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what silly cult they belong to, but in terms of OMG-this-is-whack factor, Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.
Mormonism is no more asinine than mainstream Christianity, just less widely adopted.
There's nothing 'brilliant' about Romney. He hasn't an original thought in years.
Name a president, any president, who has ever had an original idea. A president turns other people's ideas into reality. The job is a management position, and by all accounts, Romney is a pretty brilliant manager of large, overburdened, and flailing organizations (sound familiar?). Skilled management requires a certain brilliance all its own.
a completely inoffensive name
06-19-2012, 06:33
I should put a /joke next to my ALL CAPS statements from now on.
PanzerJaeger
06-19-2012, 07:04
I don't get it. You like all the flip-flopping because it means they can marginalize part of their electorate?
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?
Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.
You seem to be attributing secret motivations to Romney and Obama that are outlandish at best. I find it much easier to believe that Romney's constant flip-flopping has more to do with him having a distinct lack of political convictions than your idea that its all part of a secret plan.
What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.
More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.
Politics has always been messy, but all the greats took a stand at some point. Firm political convictions are necesarry. The manager needs to have a vision, and he has to sell that vision to electorate and to the people he delegates to. Unfortunately, its been awhile since we had a president who has felt a need to explain himself in any way, shape, or form.
Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that Romney is just an opportunistic yes-man?
Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?
His firm from back in the good old days had nothing to do with him being some coprorate wizard--it was just opportunistic sharking.
I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.
Your unshakable faith in this man seems completely unfounded from any logical point of view. He has shown no political convictions at all.
Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.
If he's elected it will be like Bush never left. I promise. And by that I mean a generally unaccountable big-government GOP administration. Nothing new to see here.
There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.
Major Robert Dump
06-19-2012, 14:39
Romney will probably steal the election because all those illegal Mormon voters will vote for him, and a bunch of them will come into the USA from Utah and Illinois and after they vote they will leave again on their stupid little Mormon rafts.
Then once he is president, he will make America a publicly traded company after secretly turning all of America's assets into liquid assets (except NASA). Right before the IPO, he will sell America's liquid assets in an 11th hour deal, probably to Bahrain, pocketing the money and then telling the public he is going to use it to create more jobs. Then he will use the NASA equipment to send Robo Romneys to find his planet and prep it for his arrival after he dies.
He will resign as President and leave on his stupid little Mormon raft, too, sticking us with his VP as President, Chris Christie, who will immediatey eat everything, including minority children.
Romney 2012 will doom America. Obama 2012 will decriminalize marijuana, and ban automobiles, and the country will be much better with people getting high and riding bicycles everywhere. Which would you rather have??
I don't think people who smoke pot will have the energy to ride bikes though...
For your amusement, I present predictions from before the 2008 election. Not gonna name names, but it's worthwhile to remember how overwrought we can all get in election season.
[Obama] will hammer his agenda through, and people like me will be the anvil. He knows better than anybody there's no tax laws written that the rich can't get around. It's middle class mucks like you and me that are going to pay for bringing up the standard of living for the welfare class.
It will begin with my 401k and my income tax (I'm not going to give him or you the enjoyment of thinking I'm dumb enough to believe that "wealthiest 5%" business. If you work for a living, your wallet is opening up). Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:
-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.
-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).
-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.
-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).
-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.
-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.
-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).
And that's just what I consider likely. If I really want to indulge in scary stories, I have a whole bunch of other ideas I've heard that Democrats are considering.
Strike For The South
06-19-2012, 18:19
...who was utterly crushed by a career politician who would say or do anything to be president. He may have even had his predecessor killed for the chance.
.
This is completely unsubstantiable
I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.
Oh I dunno, "sharking" isn't inaccurate, just incomplete. I believe the correct mafia term is bust out (http://www.mafianj.com/sci88/firstday3.shtml).
Warning, video contains Martin Scorcese f-bombs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reiq4lEvnEw
PanzerJaeger
06-19-2012, 21:03
So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment.
Political convictions (ie, unyielding ideology) limit options. Instead of asking "What is the best solution?", men with deep political convictions ask "What is the best solution within my narrowly defined belief system?" The House has traditionally been the place for ideology, the presidency is the place for pragmatism.
The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.
Is this your first time following a US election? Was 'Hope and Change' any less vacuous than 'America the Great'?
Why are you content to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why are you content to invest your vote in a party that is totally self-contradictory with nothing but vague statements and a successful businessman to point to? What is the GOP's mission statement? What is Romney's platform? What will he do? You have no idea, and you're comfortable with that for some reason. What do you want out of the administration? Why are you willing to settle for something vague?
This is an example of why our system is utterly broken. Both sides can campaign on buzzwords while demonizing the other side and not putting anything meaninful forth. Accountability is a joke, and instead of demanding a candidate with convictions you can bank on you just put the first schmuck on a pedastal who tells you a happy-sounding story.
Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of retreating to a safe, inoffensive 'the system is broken' position. Between my job and the classes I'm taking, I simply do not have the time to whine about our two party system and muse about how wonderful it would be to vote for someone who holds my exact position on every issue that is important to me. I have to try to wade through the pandering, the demonizing, and general campaign crapstorm in an effort to take a measure of both men - to make my best judgment as to how their presidencies would effect my future and the future of the country.
You're free to take the easy way out. Don't vote. Revel in the purity of your position. Hell, get out in the streets and advocate for proportional representation. See where that gets you. If your movement takes off, I might even write you a check. But please do not condescend, as some of us have too much invested in this country to be apathetic.
But its the GOP who expands government every time they get the office. Its the GOP who keeps breaking the debt ceilling. Its the GOP that actually does take away peoples' rights. Its the GOP that calls people unpatriotic when they get asked a hard question. I do not understand how anyone can still vote for that party without demanding far more specific information from your candidates.
Open your eyes. Obama has done each of those things in the last four years.
Give the dems a few more years in office and I'm sure they'll be just as bad. Both parties need to be scrapped, before the standard for presidential candidates drops even lower.
After a while, this whining starts to sound cheap and hollow. Abdicating civic responsibility to pout in the corner is intellectual weakness, not strength. The system is not going to be scrapped by November, so we have to try to make the best decision possible within the current framework.
If you start now, maybe you can build a movement for proportional representation by 2016 - there's nothing in the law that says we have to have two parties.
Major Robert Dump
06-19-2012, 21:51
I stopped voting as soon as I realized Idol was rigged.
ICantSpellDawg
06-20-2012, 02:04
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?
Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.
What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.
More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.
Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.
Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?
I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.
Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.
There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.
I agree with this post and,fortunately, I will be voting for my very first choice in this election. Probably for the 1st and only time in my life. Unless Christie runs in 4 or 8 years and then maybe I'll have 2 in a row.
ICantSpellDawg
06-20-2012, 02:10
So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment. The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.
What is a political conviction? You have convictions. You don't have too many of them and you acceptably modify the ones you do have. You do this and then empathize with the convictions of others when they can help you get into office and actualize your core convictions. Not everyone believes in every plank of a hodgepodge party - why would they and who could honestly do that? People who talk about conviction and politics in the same sentence have no idea what they are talking about. We have things that are important to us, things that are core, things that we like, things that we dislike but can deal with especially when being paid (work) and things that we hate and can't tolerate. We keep these in balance and sometimes things merge from category to category because of some stimulus that isn't too clear until we have the benefit of hindsight... and even then are not always so clear.
If you guys actually cared about my feelings you would get me one of these (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/popculture/ed1c/).
Interesting tidbit: Whether you worship The One or hate the Obamination, President 44 is really, really good for web traffic. Mr. Romney, not so much (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-is-terrible-for-traffic). I don't think this is predictive or indicative of the election; I just think it's interesting.
No one wants to read about Mitt Romney.
The well-starched Republican's traffic poison has been felt this year at websites across the political spectrum — including at BuzzFeed — and it's left many editors, publishers, and bloggers yearning for the days of the unpredictable Sarah Palin, the maverick John McCain, and the Obama-Clinton blood feud. [...]
[T]he relatively small readership interested in Romney is painfully apparent, and has editors reminiscing about the 2008 race. Franke-Ruta said, from a purely demographic standpoint, that election pulled in readers who had tuned out politics in the past.
For example, she said, "We know women are more likely to read about female politicians, so to the extent that the cast of characters in 2008 was more demographically diverse, there were more potential readers for the stories."
In the absence of the potential for a First Woman President or a First Black President, is there any saving grace that could salvage the next four months for politics websites?
"This is perhaps one of the reasons we should all be rooting for Romney to pick someone like Marco Rubio for veep," said Lewis.
Kralizec
06-20-2012, 22:53
Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85_6t6q4lco
a completely inoffensive name
06-21-2012, 00:36
The more people mistake the cynical position as the moderate or the "reasonable" position, the US will only continue to stagnate.
Major Robert Dump
06-21-2012, 02:48
Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves
a completely inoffensive name
06-21-2012, 02:52
Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves
I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....
ICantSpellDawg
06-21-2012, 03:54
I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....
Right, because waging war with Mexico for nearly the entirety of the American West was hope/change.
a completely inoffensive name
06-21-2012, 04:27
Right, because waging war with Mexico for nearly the entirety of the American West was hope/change.
Manifest Destiny sure as hell wasn't cynicism.
Major Robert Dump
06-21-2012, 04:35
I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....
Not the same country, dude.
a completely inoffensive name
06-21-2012, 04:39
Not the same country, dude.
And yet the reason everyone is mad is because they feel like they are losing the American Dream, which is dependent on the idealistic notion that America is a place where anybody can make a living for themselves if they work hard.
Major Robert Dump
06-21-2012, 04:56
And yet the reason everyone is mad is because they feel like they are losing the American Dream, which is dependent on the idealistic notion that America is a place where anybody can make a living for themselves if they work hard.
I just want to play basketball, and my dreams of making a living doing that we destroyed by Mitt Romney.
All of you will be welcome at my humble home on the Mariana Islands when you have had enough of the douchery that is American public discourse.
a completely inoffensive name
06-21-2012, 05:54
I just want to play basketball, and my dreams of making a living doing that we destroyed by Mitt Romney.
All of you will be welcome at my humble home on the Mariana Islands when you have had enough of the douchery that is American public discourse.
The public discourse is terrible because no one bothers to fully listen to others. I sympathize with everything PJ says and likewise same for what GC says in his rebuttal. We all dismiss everyone else for whatever flippant reason we can come up with.
This is why the most popular websites are political circlejerks and why people like ICantSpellDawg say the stupid things they do.
This is because deep in the america psyche, people are idealistic, but they present an outer shell of cynicism in order to protect themselves in some vague notion of being "world-wise". We get angry, but instead of actually demanding more, we expect less from politicians, who then perform less and the cycle continues. This is what seems to be happening since Nixon done gone and single handily destroyed the prestige and respect of the position of POTUS.
Strike For The South
06-22-2012, 00:28
Ever since we took away property qualifications the discourse has never been the same.
Mary Eaton and Moncia Lewinsky
JFK and Obama
On another note I am a Marixist but want to get to the point were I can start doing the exploiting. So I say we keep this captilism thing going
Major Robert Dump
06-22-2012, 01:21
The public discourse is terrible because no one bothers to fully listen to others. I sympathize with everything PJ says and likewise same for what GC says in his rebuttal. We all dismiss everyone else for whatever flippant reason we can come up with.
This is why the most popular websites are political circlejerks and why people like ICantSpellDawg say the stupid things they do.
This is because deep in the america psyche, people are idealistic, but they present an outer shell of cynicism in order to protect themselves in some vague notion of being "world-wise". We get angry, but instead of actually demanding more, we expect less from politicians, who then perform less and the cycle continues. This is what seems to be happening since Nixon done gone and single handily destroyed the prestige and respect of the position of POTUS.
I think it goes a little deeper than not listening to others. Of course that does happen, and plenty. But ultimately others don't care. Their ideas are cemented. Having a change of heart, flip flopping, evolving... is viewed as a weakness in politics.
Then of course there is greed. Good old fashioned greed, coupled with gluttony, coupled with laziness. Often masquearded as "feeding my family", "supporting my family" etc.
Want, desires, envy, all that is human nature. But we take it to a whole new level and disguise the turd as a Baby Ruth, and then wonder why no one trusts each other or us.
a completely inoffensive name
06-22-2012, 07:47
I think it goes a little deeper than not listening to others. Of course that does happen, and plenty. But ultimately others don't care. Their ideas are cemented. Having a change of heart, flip flopping, evolving... is viewed as a weakness in politics.
I would agree with this, because I think it reinforces my point that americans in general are, at their core, very idealistic. Combined with a strong sense of individualism, and that automatically generates a tendency for communication to break down.
Think about previous time periods and ask if the dialogue really was all that better. Was conversation a lot freer in the 1950s under McCarthyism? Under the Doves vs Hawks dichotomy of the late 1960s/early 1970s?
Then of course there is greed. Good old fashioned greed, coupled with gluttony, coupled with laziness. Often masquearded as "feeding my family", "supporting my family" etc.
I think you overstate this. It sounds like something "The 99%" would say.
Want, desires, envy, all that is human nature. But we take it to a whole new level and disguise the turd as a Baby Ruth, and then wonder why no one trusts each other or us.
This is a bit difficult to break down, but the fact that americans rampant individuality takes certain human characteristics to 11, isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Ultimately, Americans still share a common culture (with aesthetics and specific tastes differing from region to region). The problem comes when we no long recognize that common people (this does not apply to politicians) in general are all arguing for roughly the same goals, freedom, liberty, the american dream etc... The many splintering political philosophies are just pursuing different sources of injustice, different ideas of what is fair and what isn't, but people's idealism is where they mistake such different paths as leading to different goals and thus in a sense ideological "enemies".
Human nature never seems to be the problem, in fact the best systems of government and economy hinge on letting human nature take its course. The issue is culture, and at the risk of sounding like a "culture warrior", we all must embrace pacifism in our dialogue if we want to discover what made america great in the first place, indeed what made america (in its current form) at all. Rational discussion and compromise.
a completely inoffensive name
06-22-2012, 08:13
What's wrong with that?
You don't have to be peace-sign-waving hippy to recognize that those with a comfortable amount of wealth in this country are not only totally ignorant of how the 'other half' lives, but also are actively unwilling to fix their ignorance. Denial is the biggest obstacle to reform (whatever 'reform' means, but I think we can all agree doing something is better than doing nothing), if you ask me. And we seem to have made an artform out of it.
I agree with your post, don't get me wrong, but it's called the "99%" for a reason. Don't marginalize the very real issue of the wealth gap because you don't like a certain sub-set of vocal activists.
We were talking about the public discourse. The effects of greed really only come into effect with politicians, not the general public. Vast majority of people make less than $250,000 a year, and nobody in that range is suffering from immense greed driving their comments/public discourse. It's Wall Street and Congress that suffers from that.
EDIT: To clarify, just making a blanket statement that people don't listen to each other anymore "because greed" is too simplistic and inaccurate imo. Politicians drive a lot of public discourse, but they only provide talking points, people have to clutch them close to heart on an individual level and they usually do it based on other reasons besides greed.
a completely inoffensive name
06-22-2012, 08:28
Right, but everyone suffers when Congress is more focussed on greed and pork than doing a good job. The general public is influenced by the very rich every day, whether they like it or not. As long as people continue to believe that the system is working properly, those with money and bad motives can continue to exploit the public trust. People get really worked up over Super PAC ads, after all, when in reality they should be taken with a titanic grain of salt.
Anyway, I wasn't responding to your point. Just that sentance. You were discounting MRD's point by associating it with a group you didn't like. That's not responsible discourse either.
Yeah, we all have our own flaws and responsible dialogue is actually very difficult. Obviously, I pulled I guess some sort of fallacy by labeling MRD's statement as Occupy Wallstreet silliness. But Americans have shown in the past to be good at making compromises out of reasonable debate when they feel like it.
As a counter-intuitive example, the issue of slavery was probably the biggest conflict of economics vs morality that the country will ever face. We managed to keep our cool from literally before the US was a country until the 1860s when it finally fell apart. To me, keeping a country that was so state (not federal) centered with that kind of inner conflict for 80+ years says something. But maybe I am being ignorant here.
a completely inoffensive name
06-22-2012, 08:44
No, you're right. It's an acient question: How do you fix greed without killing freedom? This is especially important here in the US of A, since we often equate the ability to generate money with freedom.
But MRD isn't wrong to suggest that 'greed' is the problem. It isn't too simplistic. The vast majority of problems in our country can be attributed to greed, pure and simple, whether it be a corrupt congressman or a union that asked for so much they destroyed their own industry.
The physical mechanism of why the country does not work, AKA why Congress doesn't do anything, or actually does our liberties harm, is most definitely greed. No contention here.
Why people can't physically behave themselves when they talk to each other about politics? That's stubbornness born out of other factors, not greed. Greed is what sets the stage for people to be angry, the justification that people use to project their anger on others and refuse to listen is what I have been saying above.
I think the reason it took the slavery issue so long to reach a head was because the future looked bright. The west was big, and a compromise was often reached regarding whether or not a new state or territory could even have slaves. The problems facing us today are much more immediate, and in some ways will be harder to resolve.
There was still plenty of land to make compromises over in 1860, and the US was still looking very bright on every account. Manufacturing would continue to rise during the gilded age and there was plenty of new land to push west. The people just decided to stop talking, and start fighting. John Brown wasn't looking for a way to persuade slavery to go away.
a completely inoffensive name
06-22-2012, 08:56
Ah, okay. That makes sense. One has to wonder, then: Can our current problems be fixed with discourse? Or are we only delaying the inevitable?
Of course, as long as the public recognize that we all want the corruption to be removed it will be done. The details will be hammered out sooner or later and change will occur and those who depend on abusing the status quo will have a more difficult life. We just have to stop demonizing each other and pretending as if one side or other is literally destroying the country. By that I am talking about philosophies, not political parties.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.