2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Major Robert Dump]

That is the whitest thing I have ever seen or heard, I just don't know what she was thinking if she had anything to do with approving it. As a candidate, I would have found the people responsible for creating it and sued them for defamation. "Bring back Democracy" LOLOL

[Lemur]

An interesting essay by a couple of economists who make a decent argument that the debate about the economy and deficit is completely unmoored from what passes for consensus among economists.

Do you remember the Republican concern that Obama had somehow caused gas prices to rise, a development that Newt Gingrich promised to reverse? There’s simply no support among economists for this view. They unanimously agreed that “market factors,” rather than energy policy, have driven changes in gas prices.

How about the oft-cited Republican claim that tax cuts will boost the economy so much that they will pay for themselves? It’s an idea born as a sketch on a restaurant napkin by conservative economist Art Laffer. Perhaps when the top tax rate was 91 percent, the idea was plausible. Today, it’s a fantasy. The Booth poll couldn’t find a single economist who believed that cutting taxes today will lead to higher government revenue -- even if we lower only the top tax rate.

The consensus isn’t the result of a faux poll of left-wing ideologues. Rather, the findings come from the Economic Experts Panel run by Booth’s Initiative on Global Markets. It’s a recurring survey of about 40 economists from around the U.S. It includes Democrats, Republicans and independent academics from the top economics departments in the country. The only things that unite them are their first-rate credentials and their interest in public policy.

Let’s be clear about what the economists’ remarkable consensus means. They aren’t purporting to know all the right answers. Rather, they agree on the best reading of murky evidence. The folks running the survey understand this uncertainty, and have asked the economists to rate their confidence in their answers on a scale of 1 to 10. Strikingly, the consensus looks even stronger when the responses are weighted according to confidence.

The debate in Washington has become completely unmoored from this consensus, and in a particular direction: Angry Republicans have pushed their representatives to adopt positions that are at odds with the best of modern economic thinking. That may be good politics, but it’s terrible policy.

[Lemur]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles, or read the condensed version here. (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat. Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

[PanzerJaeger]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles, or read the condensed version here. (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat. Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

International relations is fascinating. He says what British papers have been reporting for months and suddenly it's some sort of grand insult.

[Major Robert Dump]

So apparently Mr. Romney's trip to Great Britain is something resembling a full-scale disaster. Check twitter under #romneyshambles, or read the condensed version here. (Right wing media absolutely silent on the unfolding fecal-fan collision; you have to admire their discipline.)

There's also a lively conversation under #AmericanBorat. Sample: "You can tell @MittRomney's doing badly when he starts getting booed by rich white people." I also spit up some coffee for: "After public jibes from Cameron and Johnson, Mitt Romney decides to retroactively cancel his trip to London."

Not really his place to lip off

But what was especially painful was watching a news anchor on CNN interviewing Rand Paul try to get him to comment on the matter

To which he responded he didnt really care and it was irrelevent

Then she tried really hard to make it relevent

And he was like STFU WHORE

[Tellos Athenaios]

International relations is fascinating. He says what British papers have been reporting for months and suddenly it's some sort of grand insult.

It is not. However to go on the record with it is impolite to the point that even a Dutchie can see that.

[SoFarSoGood]

Said just what we all knew but our politicians are too spineless to say. Good on him but shame he's a loon.

[Centurion1]

Said just what we all knew but our politicians are too spineless to say. Good on him but shame he's a loon.

? he's a loon? IE a crazy man? How so, if anything by his moderate nature hes probably more stable than most of us.

[Major Robert Dump]

Um. He is Mormon. That makes him as big of a loon as our muslim president.

Mormons heaven is super wierd. And they couldn't just use the bible like evryone else, they had to write a whole new book and release it on kindle or something, with stuff about indian jesus and basketweaving.

I am racist against mormons

[SoFarSoGood]

He's a Moron. Happy?

[Lemur]

Hour-long documentary on Romney and Mormonism from the Beeb. Note that it's from Great Britain, where they say "cheerio" a great deal and do not much like Mitt, so we'll see. Will watch when I have time.

[Lemur]

Words to live by:

For once, I’d like a pool report to tell the truth “Candidate x got off the bus and addressed an enthusiastic crowd with the exact same platitudinous crap he said four hours earlier to another equally enthusiastic crowd. There was no sense to it whatsoever, but man, these people really ate it up. And his enemies will twist his words into slightly offensive shapes and make a big dumb boring hullaballoo about it until the nation finally stirs itself to end this thing with their votes.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

Man, I love Mitt Romney. I think he's going to be the next President. I think he's a much more intelligent and interesting candidate than even he makes himself seem. The guy is awesome, embodies the style of leadership I'd like to try out in the White House, if only just once. Be a decent man, say whatever is voluminous crap is necessary just to clinch the election and then govern like a efficient business man with your eye on the economic ball. "Platudinous crap" without any substance is what I think of the current President and I have no respect for 80% of his Presidency. Lets thank him for the 20% he got right, escort him to the door and put up his portrait in the West Wing as the first (hopefully of many) Black President who killed Osama, helped overthrow Gaddafi and was more successful on Health Care than Hillary - at least. On to the next one

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, Romney is unlike any guy ever who ran for office in the history of ever.

Be a decent man, say whatever is voluminous crap is necessary just to clinch the election and then govern like a efficient business man with your eye on the economic ball

So you are suggesting that he is making promises he will not keep, and your crystal ball tells you exactly what he will do when elected? I almost want him to win so you can see how full of crap you are, and hear your excuses in three years, like we are getting now with Obama supporters.

[Lemur]

So you are suggesting that he is making promises he will not keep, and your crystal ball tells you exactly what he will do when elected?

In fairness, isn't this what all of us do, to a lesser and greater extent, when we vote for someone? Okay, maybe not so much the "promises he will not keep"; Romney is kinda unique in his quality and volume of not-true-things-saying, but when we choose to back a politician, don't we all project a bit of our own wishes and hopes into him or her?

Meh, Not really making a coherent point. Need moar coffee.

[Major Robert Dump]

That's my point exactly. But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.

I would have never thought Obama would have backed off his promises for a transparent white house. As soon as I saw who was getting hired in the Justice Department, and I realized that banks were going to go unpunished, the dream started to unravel fairly early on.

[Lemur]

But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.

Hmm, normally the promises a politico doesn't keep fall into one of two categories:

1. Stuff they never meant to do in the first place.
2. Stuff they'd like to do but can't due to exterior factors.

The tricky thing with Romney is that I have no idea what he really wants, beyond becoming President. As a Bloomberg Business columnist posits, President Romney will be forced to do stimulus spending of some sort, no matter what he says in the campaign.

In general, the best way to figure out a politician's intentions is to read his platform. But Mitt Romney is no ordinary politician. [...]

It's possible to understand every action in Romney's life as an effort to become president. But once he is president, what will his goal be? I don't know (nobody knows) but I suspect getting re-elected will be near the top of the list. To increase his chances of getting elected, he will have to implement policies that are likely to grow the economy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's my point exactly. But Dawg seems to think he knows which promises Romney won't keep.

I would have never thought Obama would have backed off his promises for a transparent white house. As soon as I saw who was getting hired in the Justice Department, and I realized that banks were going to go unpunished, the dream started to unravel fairly early on.

I don't care what promises he doesn't keep. He'll keep just enough promises to try and get re-elected. He is knowable because he is (mostly) non-ideological. He is revolutionary in that he stands for the bare minimum. He has focus and makes broken things work. It doesn't matter what those things are, they are badly broken, he gets in there and fixes them. That is interesting.

So I'll be disappointed in 4 years and everyone in the world is full of crap. Better that my guy gets in than the other guy, since they are full of equal amounts of crap.

We all know that politicians say whatever is necessary to win. Check
We all know that the pandering is limitless. Check
We all know that Romney is a good Executive in every executive position he has held within out recent lifetimes.
We know that we need a good executive.
Most of us don't believe that he is a bad or vile person.

What more do you need out of a President?

[rvg]

I don't care what promises he doesn't keep.

Strange. Then why are you supporting him? It can't be the issues.

He'll keep just enough promises to try and get re-elected.

How can you be sure?

He is revolutionary in that he stands for the bare minimum.

Bare minimum what? What is it that he stands for? The biggest problem with Romney is that none of his political statements can be taken at face value. There's no point of leverage against which one could gauge his stances.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you suggesting that he will keep more promises than he needs to get re-elected? Or that he will intentionally keep no promises and be kicked out of office? I've watched the guy for years. He says what is needed to get people on board with the projects he takes up. He sets goals and then pulls people in with him to get it done. He wants to be a good and effective leader. He wants the balance of people who hire him to be happy with his leadership. I don't think it matters what he is leading or who, just that when you choose Mitt to do A job, or when he chooses to do it, he will focus and get it done.

Meaningless campaigns may not win elections, you still need to create some sort of narrative to keep voters interested, but the basics are simple. Do a good job, make some amount of history, and make impressive things work reasonably well. The particulars are just decoration to get people interested. I just don't hold people to a high standard, all I require of leaders is that they are competent, decent people playing in the highest league they can. I don't care what they say, just the results. My issues are mine, not theirs.

The biggest problem with ANY CANDIDATE EVER is that none of their political statements can be taken at face value.

fixed it for you. Listen to Barack Obama, nothing that guys says means anything in relation to what he thinks. "how do I know that?" blow it out of your hole. ;-)

[rvg]

fixed it for you. Listen to Barack Obama, nothing that guys says means anything in relation to what he thinks. "how do I know that?" blow it out of your hole. ;-)

That's just not true. He promised to screw up healthcare and he did. He promised to wrap things up in Iraq and he did. You can look at his record and see that he at the very least tries to implement his promises. Romney promises different things to different people, supports issues before he opposes them and thusly cannot be taken at his word. As a conservative I find it very difficult to support Obama, but I'd take him ten times over Romney.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's just not true. He promised to screw up healthcare and he did. He promised to wrap things up in Iraq and he did. You can look at his record and see that he at the very least tries to implement his promises. Romney promises different things to different people, supports issues before he opposes them and thusly cannot be taken at his word. As a conservative I find it very difficult to support Obama, but I'd take him ten times over Romney.

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient. There is a word for politicians who have an ideological interest in issues. They are called unemployed. A politician's job is minimally different from our own - in order to make money we say things that we don't mean so that people put money in our pockets or make the things that we want to happen happen. You work at a restaurant? You teach school kids? you settle injury claims? You sell cars? You are a lying whore whose only identity is your paycheck. And that's fine. We've got our hobbies.

[Montmorency]

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient.

What's the sense in excoriating Obama uniquely for it, if systemic constraints and obligations apply to all political leaders?

Dishonesty in the system exists because people allow it, knowingly, as you are right now.

Why do you wish eliminate dishonesty, and how? Should a politician be recalled or impeached after a certain grace period to fulfill promises?

[Tuuvi]

Except all of those issues that Obama swore up and down about and then totally reneged on when it was politically convenient. There is a word for politicians who have an ideological interest in issues. They are called unemployed. A politician's job is minimally different from our own - in order to make money we say things that we don't mean so that people put money in our pockets or make the things that we want to happen happen. You work at a restaurant? You teach school kids? you settle injury claims? You sell cars? You are a lying whore whose only identity is your paycheck. And that's fine. We've got our hobbies.

I don't lie at my job. If a customer asks me if the pants he's thinking of buying look good or not, I have no problem telling him they're hideous.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dishonesty and politics. Inseparable.

The thing that changes from time to time, is the price. It's pretty clear, at this time, there is no demonstrable price to be paid for dishonesty. The disinformation campaign the media has waged has largely been successful: If nothing you hear is reliable, then best to rely on what you like/agree with-the rest can be safely ignored.

The consumer is the loser.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't lie at my job. If a customer asks me if the pants he's thinking of buying look good or not, I have no problem telling him they're hideous.

First off;

1) That is probably why you still sell pants
2) There is measure in controlled deceit. We tell them some element of the truth so that they look good in the right pants, thereby coming back for more pants and telling their friends how much of a straight shooter pant specialist you were. But when that guy comes in for the 20k pants? You sell him those things and never look back and stamp the receipt "final sale", no matter how they look. But make sure you give him the "discount" and hem them for him "no charge"

We combine 1 part truth, to 2 parts deceit (season to taste) finish it with competence and get good results. Obviously there are some people who lie more than they are worth, everybody gets a free pass at warping the truth to the right extent

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah yes.. the old 'Hey, in the real world there is no black and white' argument.

Dishonesty in the system exists because people allow it, knowingly, as you are right now.

Wah! What do you do for a living?

We arn't talking about killing someone and lying to cover it up, we are talking about emphasizing your positions to the right audiences on difficult issues. Abortion? If you are running for office in Massachussets, you understand why a woman would be interested in her own health and wouldn't want government telling her what she can or can't do with her body. You would serve your office without making any attempt to change existing law, effectively pro-choice (can't hurt to put "strongly" in front of it). You're running for National level office as a Republican? You have had a change of heart, still recognize the difficult nature of the issue, but err on the side of life and consider yourself "pro-life" (can't hurt to put "strongly" in front of it). My concern is what policies do you support and who is your master, I never care what these guys say to make friends. I myself recognize the difficult struggle with abortion rights and the killing of human beings, but I want to get my people into positions of power and am willing to compromise wording to forge consensus.

What other "major lies" are we talking about here that arn't just semantics with emphasis on different points for different audiences? How about swearing up and down that you are against gay marriage, leaving your position open as "evolving", attacking DOMA, and the second you start getting pressure near another election and the polls have shifted - caving in and saying you are for it? That's a flip flop.
Or what about closing Guantanamo? never happened. Or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively, rather than letting them run their course? Health care law is not a tax? They had constitutional lawyers swear that it would pass muster, even though clearly didn't and wouldnt based on the commerce clause - it was clearly a massive tax and they new it, they just didn't want to word it as one for political reasons.

Lies! Deceit! whatever. I oppose him not because he lied and deceived us, but because he lied and deceived us for end results that I disagree with and his supporters deny it happens.

[rvg]

Or what about closing Guantanamo? never happened. Or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actively, rather than letting them run their course? Health care law is not a tax? They had constitutional lawyers swear that it would pass muster, even though clearly didn't and wouldnt based on the commerce clause - it was clearly a massive tax and they new it, they just didn't want to word it as one for political reasons.

Lies! Deceit! whatever. I oppose him not because he lied and deceived us, but because he lied and deceived us for end results that I disagree with and his supporters deny it happens.

Seriously? These are your arguments against Obama?
Hmm... let's see

1. Gitmo.
Logistically impossible to close, short of killing all the inmates. Nobody wants to host them so it has to stay.

2. Iraq war. Wound down and ended in an orderly manner as the situation allowed. Do you seriously have a problem with that?

3. Afghan campaign. On track to end as soon as practically possible. What's the problem.

4. Healthcare tax/notax... Who cares? Either way it's a shame, but you're arguing pointless semantics.

We combine 1 part truth, to 2 parts deceit (season to taste) finish it with competence and get good results. Obviously there are some people who lie more than they are worth, everybody gets a free pass at warping the truth to the right extent

Except that in Romney's case the "1 part truth" is nowhere to be found.

[Major Robert Dump]

I also think we are all glossing over the fact that Romney is a Satan worshipper. I would rather have a muslim over a satan worshipper any day of the week, because at least muslims can make good curry.

[rvg]

I also think we are all glossing over the fact that Romney is a Satan worshipper.

At this point I'd vote for Satan himself, provided that the Prince of Darkness has a solid economic platform.