Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I just want to play basketball, and my dreams of making a living doing that we destroyed by Mitt Romney.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
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?
I think you overstate this. It sounds like something "The 99%" would say.Quote:
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.
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".Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
#1: Greed exists alive and well in the 250k and under bracket. At big box retail corporate stores people will literally shank each other over a promotion that gets them 50 more cents an hour. Now imagine what an accountant would do to win a lawsuit, or a contractor to win a contract, or a grifter to claim an injury. Crooks and liars, crroks and lairs.
#2: We cannot have actual, equal discourse as long as we remain a touchy-feely country intent on finding inequalities where they simply don't exist. While I sympathize with people who have gotten a raw deal in the past and continue to get a raw deal, the typical solution is a broad brush stroke that alienates just as many people as it helps. The gender wage gap debate is a prefect example of this. The hate crime debate is a perfect example of this. The minimum wage debate is a perfect example of this. Everyone deals in absolutes, and if you disagree you are a sexist, a racist, you hate poor people, you are jealous of rich people, etc. Twitter and the internet don't help, because now everyone isan expert. Read the comments in a yahoo news article sometime. It's one thing to make tacky jokes, I love tacky jokes. Shock value, yum. It's another thing for a perfect stranger to write a 1000 word diatribe about democrats-this or republicans-that, and then a whole host of fools respond with 1000 word diatribes, as if anyone cares. WTF WTF
The middle class has been shrinking for a while now. If greed is really the primary driver for these people why are they doing a piss poor job at keeping their wealth and standard of living?Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
You are just ranting now about how much you hate life and in the process misconstruing what I have been saying. Actually, you highlight what I have been saying, people have different ideas of where injustice occurs or originates from and you take this hostile attitude because to you they "simply don't exist". If they don't then by engaging in discussion about the subject will bring it to light, bringing up the online circlejerks and being a cynical ass to everyone because people obviously should "just get it" is the perfect crux of someone who is angry about the system and then proceeds to hurt himself by projecting his anger on others instead of building something constructive.Quote:
#2: We cannot have actual, equal discourse as long as we remain a touchy-feely country intent on finding inequalities where they simply don't exist. While I sympathize with people who have gotten a raw deal in the past and continue to get a raw deal, the typical solution is a broad brush stroke that alienates just as many people as it helps. The gender wage gap debate is a prefect example of this. The hate crime debate is a perfect example of this. The minimum wage debate is a perfect example of this. Everyone deals in absolutes, and if you disagree you are a sexist, a racist, you hate poor people, you are jealous of rich people, etc. Twitter and the internet don't help, because now everyone isan expert. Read the comments in a yahoo news article sometime. It's one thing to make tacky jokes, I love tacky jokes. Shock value, yum. It's another thing for a perfect stranger to write a 1000 word diatribe about democrats-this or republicans-that, and then a whole host of fools respond with 1000 word diatribes, as if anyone cares. WTF WTF
It's a language game. Redefine "Us" and "Them".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Also people are lazy citizens. If everyone was as passionate as the people here in the backroom, it would be a different ballgame.
Ehh I analyzed MRD's #2 point incorrectly because I skimmed the first few sentences. Looks like I suck at constructive dialogue. Will edit when I get my head together tomorrow.
Interesting bit from an article about social networking: Super PACs hate it and leave it the hell alone.
Clinton used mailing lists in ’92, and every election since then — famously Howard Dean to Barack Obama — has involved considerably more imaginative use of social media. And this election has not. I’ve been quite surprised by that.
I had a student looking at Super PACs a while ago, and we said, “Let’s try and find out what the Super PACs’ social media strategy is.” As she came back about 10 days later, she said, “I think I know what the Super PAC’s social media strategy is: Don’t use it.” That’s exactly the whole point of being a Super PAC, to be able to spend unlimited money on the kind of media where no one has the right or the ability to respond, and to minimize transparency. This election feels to me, right now, more Nixon-Kennedy than Obama-McCain because television has become the tool of choice for the source of unlimited fundraising. Politicians like television better; nobody gets to yell back to you if you’re yelling on TV.
An odd question coming from a die-hard union supporter. It's easy to screw people over and steal from the government when you have money, it is business as usual. Keep the middle classes fighting over dumb, divisive social issues, and then tell them they are not more successful because they don't work hard enough. I wasn't kidding about the 50 cent raise thing. People will lie and make others lose their jobs for promotions that amount to an extra tank of gas a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You are mean
Ha! Kennedy was a promising candidate back then and Nixon looked terrible. Romney is better looking than Barack Obama and Obama has already shown himself to be a PR glam flop over the past 4 years. Nothing like that election except that the President has the cool factor, but nearly every Democratic candidate has has that over the GOP and look at the balance sheet. If we are talking about the stuff that people vote on, Obama has no promise and Romney is better looking, not scary and measured. I think we have a shot this time on the superficial stuff alone (also known as the important stuff)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That is just not true. I've written extensively about the qualities that I feel would make Romney a good president - experience, competence, leadership qualities, management skill, pragmatism, and an analytical decision making approach are just a few of those traits that come to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You act shocked.... shocked!... that Romney is running more on rhetoric than reality, as if you hadn't lived through 2008... or 2004... or 2000. Welcome to American democracy. Do some reading on the election of 1800 if you really want to see some ugly populism... or the turn of the century big city bosses and the ballot stuffing that persisted well into the '60s (and handed the JFK his victory). Americans are so much more informed today than they ever have been, and our elections are far more fair.
You're obviously not even reading my posts, so I won't bother to waste my (now crunched) time on a point by point response to yours. My only point to you is that this is a thread about the 2012 election. The constant bitching and condescension about the 'system' is getting tired. I get it, by taking an interest in the election as it stands, by trying to make a realistic (not idealistic) choice, I'm an uninformed dolt propping up a broken system. If I really cared about the direction of this country, I would sit on the sidelines and pout about how awful things are.
Now that I think about it, though, I'm not even prepared to cede the point that the system is broken - at least to the point of dysfunction. It's messy, its dirty, and it often seems unfair, but it always has been. And, yet, America has persisted. After all the drama, the best candidate won. He usually does. There was no question that Romney was the best of the lot, and after all the drama, he managed to make it out of the primaries. While he wasn't my absolute, number one pick, there is no question he has the experience and talents to be president, and I will have no reservations about voting for him. I think he is a pretty admirable guy, much more so than Bush actually, and I can think of few contemporary politicians better suited for the office. The system worked, at least for me.
My ideal candidate right now would be Gilbert Godfried.
I do realize that I get into round and rounds with people, and act all offended, and act all pessimistic, and I think I made PJ mad about something because he won't even talk to me anymore or cyber with me on Steam, but in the end what it boils down to is that I just do not care any more. I haven't given up on anything in terms of politics, because that would assume that I actually stood for something to begin with. Nor do I think that people should stop pursuing what they believe in, divisive or wrongheaded or not.
I have now reserved myself to 4 things:
- pursuing my non-profit work, in a country other than the USA
- minor enteprenuership, enough to support my non profit and bad habits
- marrying a little brown island girl half my age, because based on my looks a brown girl+me will make the prettiest babies, and good looks = more success
- having lots of babies with said girl half my age. Very difficult, very hard work, I am a true hero making a sacrifice
These 4 things are not conducive to me staying in the continental USA, running the rat race, and arguing over the things the politicians want us to argue about.
I may get shanked by a crook who wants my watch in the 3rd world, I may get kidnapped by Abu Sayaab from a beach because I am an American, I may die a horrible, preventable disease because I forgot not to drink the tap water...... and it will all be worth it because it means I will never have to listen to Chris MAtthews or Glenn Beck ever again. As of 2013, my taxable annual income will never, ever again exceed $18,000. Have a nice day
Also I am drunk
I still believe in stuff, but not too much stuff - that's why I find what others believe in to be laughable sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
So we need what? a Messiah? Give me a break - we need a guy who is a mover and a shaker and can bring people together and make us all rich without ruining everything. Romney can do that, Obama can't. Obama has proven that he can't, Romney has proven that he can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
A messiah indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You are a hollow M&M.
At least i'm not filled with turd nuggetsQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I passed those yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
But who are we talking about here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You do not seem to understand what I am referring to when I say competence. Proper administration of very large organizations is very difficult and requires a unique skill set that most do not possess. That is why the private sector pays such incredibly high salaries to men like Alan Mulally. It's why Apple sucked after they fired Steve Jobs. He wasn't so much a visionary as he was a taskmaster, keeping the organization's constant focus on its goals. The Peter Principle eliminates 99.9% of those willing to attempt management at that scale, leaving competition for that .1% very intense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
IIRC, the United States government is the largest, most complex organization on earth - that or the Chinese PLA. And that is not even counting the Healthcare takeover.
IMO, the reason Obama has failed is not because of ideology, but because he has been an ineffective manager. An objective look at the Bush administration would show a similar deficiency. Both men could have been great left/right of center presidents, but they simply could not harness the federal government to effect change. Instead, the complexities of navigating Washington overwhelmed them and we were left with wasted political capital and middling results.
At this time, in our current situation, we do not need an ideological president. This isn't Roosevelt versus the monopolies. It's not Reagan versus the Great Society. The country doesn't need a hard ideological shift. We know broadly what needs to be done, and it is largely administrative. The country isn't actually in bad shape long term, we've just suffered too much ideology and too little management at the top.
Romney's unique skill set is not the bare minimum we should expect, but, frankly, more than we could ask for. The man could be making hundreds of millions of dollars in the private sector, but has decided for whatever reason - genuine patriotism, ambition, daddy-issues, or some mix of the three - to put himself through the exhausting campaign process and the personal demonization to take a shot at righting our ship. The presidency was a big income and stature boost for a community organizer turned one-term, record-less senator. He and his family's lives have been upgraded tremendously because of it. In contrast, Romney doesn't need this. He makes more than the presidential salary in less than a week. It's a service.
A. You have no idea if Romney is ideological or not because he was ideological during the primaries and now he is being mister moderate during the general election, like every smooth talking politician.
B. If you want to portray him as a man who just wants to do his service to the country you are going to get laughed at by me when I recall and re-watch the 1990s debates with Ross Perot. Now that was a guy who really didn't need to be in there, but he busts out his charts in a completely unorthodox manner (and some would say embarrassing manner) and doesn't give a **** about how oddball he comes across. That's a guy who is there because he wants to do a service and that actually resonated in the American public with the large percentages he was grabbing.
Romney is the complete opposite of Perot presentation wise, he is the textbook definition of processed and polished.
Oh please. You mean the thing where we smoothed all the rough patches to subsidize and preserve private medical insurance? That takeover? Next you'll be going on about death panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Who is this ideal person you are talking about? You try to make it sound like you are a true believer, but it doesn't seem like you have anyone in mind or have ever met anyone capable of filling the roll that needs to be filled. Go write fiction or watch a disney movie if you can't live in the real world. Pull the lever or press a button for Romney if you want a decent President who wants to make the world a better place and satisfy his own ambition after years of making himself and his investors very rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Or you can vote for another 4 years for Obama, who clearly sucks. Lets get a manager in there and see how he does, hell, Obama can even write speeches for him and we'll have the best of both worlds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I know Romney's platform better than most. I knew it 4 years ago even better than I do now. I've met him, I own (and skimmed) both of his books and watched many of his town hall style discussions. I follow the campaign and the people he hires, the endorsements that he receives. I followed the endorsements that he made at the mid-terms. What would you like to know? If you have a question on a specific policy issue I will go over his evolution on that issue. If you want the stump, go to his website.
Do I need to get a doctorate in Romney to have an idea what I'm talking about? Here is a link to "Romney, tuffstuffmcgruff" keywords. Peruse, leisurely, on your own time. Can I get a witness? I'm obsessed with Romney and I DO question your grasp of reality if you haven't picked up that much about me.