With Santorum's withdrawal from the race, what was once inevitable is now assured: The race will be Obama and Romney.
Now we can start considering VP picks and race dynamics as the two candidates start hitting each other more directly.
Feel free to start posting here as the other thread winds down.
[ January 21, 2013, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I suspect Romney is going to pick up Paul Ryan for VP. He needs somebody with the appearance of conservative credentials, especially fiscal discipline and tax cut happiness. While I think Ryan's ideas on paper are ludicrous, he's smart enough to keep a cool head at all times, which gives him the appearance of wisdom. He's also viewed favorable by virtually all of the conservative base right now.
It will also give Romney some leeway in scooting to the center since Ryan can be his attack dog.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
His thesis is that we've got a race between a couple of cerebral egoists with no Bill Clinton-esque "I feel your pain" emotin' going on, and that all the lip-flapping about wanting a President we can have a beer with seems in practice to be taking a back seat to wanting a President who demonstrates "wisdom, strength, and intellect."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ryan would be a good choice, politically, but it's a horrible one. I've seen Condi Rice floated as an option, and I find that intriguing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the Veep-stakes: I think most speculation is pretty pointless. Recently there's been some movement away from Marco Rubio and toward Rob Portman both in the Insiders' poll and at InTrade. To me, that seems like a recognition that having Rubio on the ticket doesn't necessarily lead to a bump with Latino or Hispanic voters. But I think it's probably more likely that the pick, when it comes, will be someone not frequently mentioned on the short-lists that journalists are endlessly circulating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: Perhaps, but recently Romney had Ryan campaigning with him for about ten days. I expect that was very much a, "Lets see how well we like each other" period.
Tom: What you said definitely. Condi would definitely be an interesting choice. But for some reason foreign policy just doesn't matter to people as much as I wish it did.
edit: Romney can easily fill certain cabinet level position with wonks, and that's enough for most people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
BB, Romney was also campaigning in Wisconsin (Ryan's home state) for some of the time, and Ryan had just recently endorsed him, both of which might be partial explanations for the recent joint politicking. A Ryan pick is certainly not impossible, but I don't see the evidence for Ryan as being any stronger than Christie or Ayotte or Haley or Rubio or Portman or any number of other prominent national Republicans who've spent time with Romney on the campaign trail during the primaries.
I agree that Condi Rice is an interesting potential pick, although I think we're still too close to her time in Bush's cabinet, and particularly her role in making the political case for and then administering the Iraq and Afghan wars for her to have an easy path to the VP nomination.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
BB, Condi has three things that are more important to Romney's campaign then her foreign policy experience.
1) She is a woman, and there is a strong resentment with many women and the whole--Birth-Control/Slut thing running around the conservative arena. This could offset it.
2) She is a minority. Her choice would crush much of the "Conservatives are Racists" arguments the left normally advances.
3) Unlike the last attempt to pick a conservative woman to get the disappointed Hillary voters--she is very intelligent. She will not be seen as some one two thick-witted to be President.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The magic of Condi is that she allows Obama to hammer Romney with every foreign policy mistake made by Bush. Right now Romney can distance himself, but Condi's foreign policy experience leaves a BAD taste in the mouth of most Americans. Where was she on 9-11? Where was she on WMDs? What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I think the dangers of opening that pandora's box undermines her demographic strengths. After McCain picked Palin, what Romney needs more than anything is a humdrum no nonsense VP who can hold his or her own and stay OUT of the spotlight.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'd be frankly surprised if he didn't pick a woman. In fact, I'd be frankly surprised if, no matter what happens, we don't have a woman in the white house in this decade. It is clearly an idea who's time has come- judging from the not unserious candidacies of not one but two women in the last election cycle (jesting over Palin aside).
And Romney is going to be *seriously* hurting with women voters by the time this election comes round. Thanks in no small part to the idiocy displayed by the hard right this year on women's rights.
I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've heard that due to the demographics the day of two old white dudes on the ticket is over.
The republicans are in the position of where they NEED a female on the ticket as women have polled recently as to now supporting democrats twice as much as republicans, but every high profile one sans Palin or Bachmann is far too moderate and will make the base stay home on election day.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but most women are also smart enough to not vote for a woman just because she's a woman.
Remember when Tina Fey did one of her Palin impressions and tried to pick up the Clinton mantle, telling women to vote for her. And Amy Poehler jumped in to say that women weren't interchangeable, and she didn't want women to vote for her because she was a woman, but because she was awesome and just happened to be a woman? Goes something like that.
It still matters what the woman stands for, and most women wouldn't have voted for someone like Bachmann.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A couple recent news items:
Lawrence O'Donnell questions Romney's judgment due to his acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, then half-heartedly apologizes when it's pointed out that his understanding of the early Mormon church is largely inaccurate.
A Democratic operative and erstwhile DNC consultant Hilary Rosen touches off a political firestorm when she claims Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life". Lots of people, including the Obama campaign, immediately disavow the statements, but Rosen pushes back by blaming Romney ("look, Mitt Romney has brought his wife into this conversation") and playing the victim ("Instead everybody’s attacking me, that’s fine, attack me, but.."). Morecondemnation follows (except for Fox News commentator Greta van Sustern who defended Rosen while still disagreeing with her point).
<edit>More Democratic distancing, as DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and first lady Michelle Obama tweet their respect for mothers and all their hard work.</edit>
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I just want Gingrich on the cabinet, Secretary of State maybe. I would never vote for him as president, but the guy is smart, and would make a great adviser.
Christie as VP?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Romney's actually four years older than Kerry was in 2004. No denying he's more attractive, though Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: A couple recent news items:
Lawrence O'Donnell questions Romney's judgment due to his acceptance of Joseph Smith as a prophet, then half-heartedly apologizes when it's pointed out that his understanding of the early Mormon church is largely inaccurate.
A Democratic operative and erstwhile DNC consultant Hilary Rosen touches off a political firestorm when she claims Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life". Lots of people, including the Obama campaign, immediately disavow the statements, but Rosen pushes back by blaming Romney ("look, Mitt Romney has brought his wife into this conversation") and playing the victim ("Instead everybody’s attacking me, that’s fine, attack me, but.."). Morecondemnation follows (except for Fox News commentator Greta van Sustern who defended Rosen while still disagreeing with her point).
<edit>More Democratic distancing, as DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and first lady Michelle Obama tweet their respect for mothers and all their hard work.</edit>
I think both Rosen and Anne Romney have good points in that kerfuffle. Rosen is right that Ann Romney hasn't been a "working mother" in the way we often think of it, and while Ann Romney is right that being a stay-at-home mom isn't a walk in the park, Rosen's point has more to do with the fact that Ann Romney never struggled to put food on the table. She never had to worry about paying for child care, food, education, clothing, etc. In other words, she missed out on most of the traditional problems that working mothers have to deal with.
But I think Ann Romney makes a good point by saying she shouldn't be attacked for choosing to be a stay at home mom. They both agreed that not every woman has that choice, but the ones who do, and take it, shouldn't be attacked for it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think the part I like best is the irony of the privileged, successful, wealthy Rosen telling us we shouldn't accept Ann Romney's opinions about "what women think" because she's so privileged, successful, and wealthy.
Honestly, this is a total misstep on Rosen's part. She's right that the Romney's wealth meant Ann had more flexibility in choosing her life's work* but attacking the well-liked Ann Romney for being a SAHM effectively eliminates the Obama campaign's ability to continue pushing their "war on women" line, which (because of the recent PPP poll showing Romney lagging with women voters) has been their preferred strategy for the last week or so. In effect, while trying to hit Romney where he was bleeding Rosen not only missed, but she also provided his campaign with an effective counter-attack.
*Although Mitt and Ann's early married life wasn't all bread and roses, either; Tagg and Matt were both born while Mitt and Ann were still undergraduates at BYU and, if you believe Wikipedia, living in a basement apartment in Provo.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I think he'll lose though. I think Romney is as about as attractive a presidential candidate as Bob Dole. That is: not very.
I think you're probably right, but I liken him more to Kerry than to Dole.
A younger, more attractive Kerry, but he has the same wooden facade that will do him no favors in the general election.
Romney's actually four years older than Kerry was in 2004. No denying he's more attractive, though
You know, I had a feeling this might be true, and considered looking up their ages before posting, but I decided that technical age or not, Kerry had (and has) a certain withered ghoulish aspect that Romney manages to avoid.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
I agree with your conclusions, except that I think Christie's plainspokenness is actually the least of the reasons, the biggest one being that he seems pretty committed to his Governorship. He didn't run in the primary for the same reason.
Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
I guess it's worth mentioning that my impression of what conservatives want is largely based on rather odd sectors, so I don't really have my finger to the pulse of the conservative masses, per se. I bet SenojRetep will let me know how much of this is my twisted imagination of events vs. actual reality. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rosen 'apologizes':
quote:As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.
In effect "I'm right, you're wrong, but you're all making such a stupid deal out of this I'll say I'm sorry as a concession to your idiocy."
Also, she appreciates stay-at-home mothers because her PR firm is "full" of them. That doesn't even make sense.
I mean, I hate to be part of the great umbrage taking that our political discourse devolves to during campaign season, but I'm just astounded that as a partner in a high-profile Democratic political communications firm she could be so inept, defensive and un-self-aware.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
I'm not sure how far you're thinking back, or if you're thinking through just how hardcore the current crop of Republican conservatives are. Christie has the same position on gay marriage that Obama does. How well do you think that'll go over? And the fact of the matter is that most people, especially with today's media, tend to prey upon people who speak their minds in politics. Some people will love it, but the media will use it as a wedge against those who don't. Besides, you only have to look at Palin to see what happens to a campaign when the VP goes rogue.
quote:It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
Historically, Republicans over the last 50 years have respected the "it's my turn" argument a lot more than on the Democratic side.
But I think you might also want to consider the fact that Obama is favored by most to win, and he might not want to sacrifice 9+ months of his life on a campaign he's likely to lose. Plus, Ryan is pretty young. He has plenty of time, or to be the VP candidate that gets introduced to the nation and then comes out swinging in 2016 as the heir apparent.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I thought this article by Walter Kirn was great, both for the analysis and for the writing quality.
His thesis is that we've got a race between a couple of cerebral egoists with no Bill Clinton-esque "I feel your pain" emotin' going on, and that all the lip-flapping about wanting a President we can have a beer with seems in practice to be taking a back seat to wanting a President who demonstrates "wisdom, strength, and intellect."
Walter Kirn's article didn't seem to ignite any conversation, but John Harris makes a similar point here.
quote:The general election will pit one exceptionally self-contained, self-disciplined, self-motivated man against another with precisely the same traits.
Voters have a choice between two men whose minds gravitate to rationality and logic — both of whom have expressed disdain for the disorder and surliness that pervade modern governance.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the chances of Christie being the VP are virtually zero. He's a gaffe machine, even worse than Biden. He speaks his mind, which a lot of people (myself included) greatly appreciate, but it makes him a huge campaign trail liability. Besides, he's not nearly the conservative defender that a lot of people think he his. He's just as moderate as Romney. A lot of people will have a problem swallowing two moderate Republicans from northeast states on the GOP ticket. The base has been pushed too far to the right.
In the general election are they really just trying to reach republicans anymore?
It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
I see conservative democrats everywhere in my area, especially in areas that have high minority populations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
On the other hand, Stephan, a lot of minority conservative Democrats I know are unlikely to vote for anyone but Obama regardless.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Admittedly, as you said, he is a more moderate conservative on numerous issues, but most of those are largely presidential nonstarters for a Republican candidate, like gun control, so I'm not as sure as you are that it would have been a huge impediment. He's not markedly less conservative than Romney, and it seems to me like his bluntness is a huge mark in his favor as opposed to making him "gaffe machine." But I think he was being his characteristic honest, blunt self when he explained why he wasn't running: he wants to finish being Governor, full stop.
I'm not sure how far you're thinking back, or if you're thinking through just how hardcore the current crop of Republican conservatives are. Christie has the same position on gay marriage that Obama does. How well do you think that'll go over? And the fact of the matter is that most people, especially with today's media, tend to prey upon people who speak their minds in politics. Some people will love it, but the media will use it as a wedge against those who don't. Besides, you only have to look at Palin to see what happens to a campaign when the VP goes rogue.
I'll admit that I do tend to think that the current ever-popular cries of "most conservative/hard right extremist Republicans EVAR!" are a bit overblown, so that's probably coloring my thoughts on Christie. I think that on certain issues, like fiscal austerity, groups like the tea party have driven Republicans harder to the right, but that's an issue in which Christie and Ryan both have a pretty solid track record so far.
But I don't think that conservatives in general are monstrously more right wing on every issue than in years past. I think that on many issues, including things like gay rights, there's a pretty clear and steady upward trend of improvement that hasn't actually been reversed despite some histrionics on the left.
(For example, even while Republican primary candidates were falling all over themselves to be more anti-gay-marriage than the other guy, they were simultaneously doing contortions to one-up each other in the tolerance game by talking about gay staffers they had, not discriminating against gays, and similar.)
Again, I admit that I don't keep up much with public opinion polls, so I guess this could be the imaginary conservatives in my head. But I do occasionally keep up with online news sources that are generally characterized as strongly right wing, like PJ Media and similar, so I'm mostly talking about what I see from conservative commentators.
Re: Christie's bluntness, the thing is that he's much better at articulating why he is blunt than Palin has ever been. When people call him on his bluntness, he says stuff like this.
And it plays pretty damn well, seems to me. That doesn't look like a gaffe. It looks like a slam-dunk, at least to my admittedly biased perspective.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:It's actually the same reason I tend to dismiss the floated idea of Ryan as VP, too. I think if Ryan wanted to leave the House for the more monochromatic House, he would have run in the primary. He seems hugely popular among most conservatives, many of whom were basically begging him to run. He stayed out of it, and it seems like that's because he wants to stay where he's at.
Maybe I'm wrong, and it was some sense of fairness that it was Romney's "turn" which led him to choose not to run. In which case he really could snap up a VP slot to build up his credentials for a 2020 run or something. But I'm skeptical.
Historically, Republicans over the last 50 years have respected the "it's my turn" argument a lot more than on the Democratic side.
But I think you might also want to consider the fact that Obama is favored by most to win, and he might not want to sacrifice 9+ months of his life on a campaign he's likely to lose. Plus, Ryan is pretty young. He has plenty of time, or to be the VP candidate that gets introduced to the nation and then comes out swinging in 2016 as the heir apparent.
Yeah that's a good point too. If he doesn't run, nobody can say he lost.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
Really? I have seen no statistics that reflect this conclusion.
Now, I *have* seen statistics that say that if more democrats *voted*, Bush would have lost. But was a cohort of democrats actually decisive in Bush's two victories?
(This leaving aside the fact that yes, probably, in those few districts in Florida, if Bush had had zero democrats vote for him, he would likely have lost, and thus, lost the election. But anyway, that presupposes that Dems were only decisive in that one state).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan_Frank
quote:Yeah that's a good point too.
You continue to be a joy to argue against. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You too!
Let's not get too much love all over this politics thread, though. The Republican base wouldn't approve.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You get one shot at running for President. I think the last person who successfully ran after losing the General election as the nominee was Nixon, and that was following an assassination.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Do you think there's some legitimate, compelling reason for that, or is it just the way things shake out?
Is it just as simple as lack of confidence? As you said, you get one shot, and if you can't hack it then nobody expects you to be able to any better the next time?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Essentially, yes. You're not a loser if you don't lose. And who wants to go through that kind of thing twice?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: It has the potential of reaching democrats though. Lets face it, if no democrats voted for Bush, he would have lost.
Really? I have seen no statistics that reflect this conclusion.
Now, I *have* seen statistics that say that if more democrats *voted*, Bush would have lost. But was a cohort of democrats actually decisive in Bush's two victories?
(This leaving aside the fact that yes, probably, in those few districts in Florida, if Bush had had zero democrats vote for him, he would likely have lost, and thus, lost the election. But anyway, that presupposes that Dems were only decisive in that one state).
Now when I said that, I wasn't taking the electoral college into account. But I distinctly remember both in 2000 and 2004 reading that more Democrats voted for Bush, then Republicans voted for the opposing candidate. I'm trying to find the data.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Still, that doesn't guarantee the conclusion you're drawing here about what would have been needed for Bush to lose. It's a fair assumption, maybe even likely, but not evident in anything I've seen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Essentially, yes. You're not a loser if you don't lose. And who wants to go through that kind of thing twice?
Adlai Stevenson not only ran in 1956 after losing in 1952, he wanted the nomination again in 1960, but was unwilling to campaign for it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Still, that doesn't guarantee the conclusion you're drawing here about what would have been needed for Bush to lose. It's a fair assumption, maybe even likely, but not evident in anything I've seen.
My point was more supposed to point out that for a republican to win, he would need to win over some democrats. It is why, contrary to what many hard-core conservatives believe, Romney would have more of a chance than Santorum or Gingrich to beat Obama. (Not that I think he will.)
Looking at 2004 shows me some interesting things though:
11% of democrats and 48% of independents voted for Bush. He had to appeal to a more moderate audience to win.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ann Romney has no more in common with most stay-at-home moms than PrincessAnne. Any cleaning, cooking, shopping, laundry, kid-watching, chauffeuring etc was by choice -- by preference rather than "Nobody else is gonna do it if I don't." And slumming is no more working than camping.
[ April 13, 2012, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Ann Romney has no more in common with most stay-at-home moms than PrincessAnne. Any cleaning, cooking, shopping, laundry, kid-watching, chauffeuring etc was by choice -- by preference rather than "Nobody else is gonna do it if I don't." And slumming is no more working than camping.
Who cares. I haven't decided if I am voting for Romney or not yet, but his wife and his financial situation has no bearing on it whatsoever. Once upon a time women were looked down upon for NOT staying at home and raising children.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Ben Romney (4th son) posted this status update to Facebook:
quote:A lot of people have been weighing in on my Mom lately, so I thought I would add my own two cents...I have one daughter, a 3 year old girl, and I feel overwhelmed most of the time my wife and I are raising her. Growing up, we never had a nanny or a "mommy's helper." Never went to daycare. When I left for school in the morning (after she had made me breakfast), she was there. When I came home at the end of the day, she was there. She drove me to HOURS of my sports lessons and competitions (baseball, tennis, basketball, etc), and was my #1 fan in the stands. She encouraged my musical interests, and cheered me on at my piano recitals and high school band concerts. I could go on and on. I was just one out of five, but always felt like I was the most important thing in her life. For my Mom to raise us 5 boys, the way she did, was, in my mind, the most demanding - and hopefully rewarding - work she could have done. Love you Mom, and thanks.
That sounds like pretty much exactly what I'd say about my mom (except the making breakfast bit; I ate cold cereal and I got it myself). The idea that Ann Romney doesn't understand what life is like for most mothers because she's rich is silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ben Romney isn't at all addressing the point Rosen made.
She wasn't saying stay at home mom's don't do anything.
But man, kudos to the Romney team and Fox News for dramatically creating a new narrative that fits their purposes. It was dumb of Rosen to give them the ammo, no matter how out of context she's being taken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even sure they believe that or not. The Romneys have successfully turned this from an attack on Romney's understanding of the Every(wo)man to an attack from liberals on stay-at-home moms. It was a brilliant parry, and a lot of people aren't seeing through it, in large part due to the media inaccurately reporting what Rosen said.
But I'm willing to bet there's some of that as well.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kate-
You're wrong. Stay-at-home motherhood is actually *less* of a 'luxury' today than it was 50 years ago. Many women stay home because it's the most cost effective way to provide care for their children.
It's great that wealthy, educated women can choose whether to stay at home or not, but the idea that most mothers _have_ to work to make sure their kids have food is a flat-out fallacy.
Also: "normal" moms is a pretty abhorrent formulation. I know you hated it when Sarah Palin was talking about "real" Americans. Don't be that.
Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
FWIW, just in the interest of bias disclosure (I think I've mentioned this here before), I know Ben and his wife quite well, and others of the Romney clan a bit.
*It could be worse; many people (including Sen. Hatch) thought they'd try to paint the Romneys as not "normal" because they're Mormon.
<edit>Also, just to rebut a minor point you made in passing, this wasn't a Fox News production. The outrage against Rosen was all over Twitter almost immediately after her comments, and the morning news shows all had significant pieces condemning Rosen's comments, all prior to the interview Ann did with Fox News.</edit>
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
And Mrs. Obama does?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
Oh I agree that Rosen made a comment that was far too easily taken out of context. For a professional politico, even good points have to be delivered well, or you might as well just shoot yourself in the foot.
And no, I still think both you AND Ben are missing Rosen's point. I think it's great that Ann Romney decided to be so actively involved in her kids' lives, but she still did it from a position of luxury. When mothers are stressing about the economy, and the message implied by Mitt that he should be getting from his wife, they aren't worried about the stresses of picking up the kids from soccer practice on time or making sure they get a healthy snack after school.
They're worried about having enough money to pay for braces, or sending them to college, or how to pay to feed them, clothe them, perhaps even to provide luxuries like the music lessons and sports equipment that Ben refers to in his post. Ann never had to worry about any of that. And THAT is the economic angle that Rosen is referring to. She's not talking about ANY of the stuff you are.
So I'm sorry, but the experience of the Romney's IS different from millions of struggling families who do have those worries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Most mothers don't get the chance anymore to stay at home. Most mothers these days have to work to make sure that their kids have food. They have to worry about paying the bills and the mortgage (if they are lucky enough to own a home) or the rent. Or, heaven forbid, doctor bills. That the Romneys believe that their life is normal, that Mrs. Romney is a regular mom who understands what life is like for most mothers instead of realizing how very privileged they are is the problem with them.
I'm sure she is a great mom but she doesn't have to deal with many of the things that normal moms have to overcome.
And Mrs. Obama does?
Mitt claimed he got economic advice about the plight of women from his wife. So that's why his wife's opinions and credentials are in question.
President Obama never made that claim, so Michelle isn't in the hot seat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Kate-
You're wrong. Stay-at-home motherhood is actually *less* of a 'luxury' today than it was 50 years ago. Many women stay home because it's the most cost effective way to provide care for their children.
It's great that wealthy, educated women can choose whether to stay at home or not, but the idea that most mothers _have_ to work to make sure their kids have food is a flat-out fallacy.
Also: "normal" moms is a pretty abhorrent formulation. I know you hated it when Sarah Palin was talking about "real" Americans. Don't be that.
Lyrhawn- I think it's less masterful on Romney's part than simple ineptitude on Rosen's part. She could have killed the story almost immediately with a sincere apology; instead she doubled down, got defensive, and repeatedly demonstrated both her contempt and her ignorance.
Also, Ben's not addressing the economic point Rosen was directly pushing, but the broader issue of whether Ann's experience is common to those of most mothers, which was the foundation of Rosen's attack. The Dems' strategy has (and will remain) pushing the idea that the Romneys' wealth makes them out-of-touch elitists. I think that pointing out that Ann Romney, despite having the means to hire nannies, cooks, and chauffeurs, chose instead to participate in her childrens' lives is a direct response to the attack that "they're not normal" because they're rich* which has been at the heart of the Obama campaign's strategy.
FWIW, just in the interest of bias disclosure (I think I've mentioned this here before), I know Ben and his wife quite well, and others of the Romney clan a bit.
*It could be worse; many people (including Sen. Hatch) thought they'd try to paint the Romneys as not "normal" because they're Mormon.
<edit>Also, just to rebut a minor point you made in passing, this wasn't a Fox News production. The outrage against Rosen was all over Twitter almost immediately after her comments, and the morning news shows all had significant pieces condemning Rosen's comments, all prior to the interview Ann did with Fox News.</edit>
Do you not get the difference between being wealthy enough to not have to work and not being able to work because you can't afford day care because you never finished high school and can't get a good job? Apparently, the Romneys don't.
I really don't begrudge the Romneys (or other wealthy people) their good fortune. The problem lies when they pretend to be "just plain folks" or, worse, actually think that other people have it as good as they do. "Normal" in this context isn't to be emulated in this context.
[ April 13, 2012, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I get what you're both saying. I'm not trying to pretend that Ann Romney's running Ben to soccer practice is the same as Rosen's hypothetical single-mom waitress just trying to get by and keep her kids in clothes and food. If Romney's sole adviser on the economic issues women face* was Ann, that'd be a big problem. Luckily she isn't.
By the same token, do you get that Rosen's comments are part of a bigger narrative being pushed by Democratic leadership that the Romneys, because of their wealth and/or their values, just don't get what it's like to be a real American?
*It makes me wonder, though, what advisers on the issue Obama is listening to. Does he have a struggling waitress on staff to give him information on what it's like to be a lower-middle class woman during bad economic times? Or is he getting his cues from well fed, well coifed advisers like Hilary Rosen? Or, more likely, from advisers like David Axelrod?
<edit>Also, the Romneys are, from my limited interaction, "just plain folks." I mean, the first time I saw Mitt Romney it was while he was goofing off with his grandkids during a church meeting making silly faces to make them laugh. If, on the other hand, you're talking about putting on a "man of the people" act, I don't know why Obama's well-documented "just plain folks" affectations ("Hey Midwesterners, listen to me talk about how ya'll are hurtin' out here") would bug you more than the Romneys'.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wish you wouldn't conflate "real" and "normal". We are not suggesting that the Romneys aren't real. But they really don't seem to have a grasp on the struggles of...typical?...ordinary? middle class or poorer families. This isn't something fabricated by the Democrats, it is clear from what both Gov. and Mrs. Romney say themselves. It would be something if they at least recognized that they have been extraordinarily fortunate.
edit: It isn't the "homespun" bit that is the issue. It is the cluelessness. Neither of the Obamas grew up wealthy yet the talk about how fortunate they are to be where they are now and recognize that not everyone is so lucky. Instead of saying idiot things about how they understand poverty because they had to sell stock to pay for college.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think it's dense of you to think they don't recognize that. I think you're eating up a narrative that simply isn't true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did she not say that about college?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'll give a personal example. Mitt was the president of the Boston LDS stake. As part of this, he personally administered church programs in areas like Revere, Lynn, Somerville, and Cambridge with Spanish, Brazillian, Cambodian, and Haitian members and lay leaders. He saw first hand the economic challenges those groups of immigrants faced, and volunteered hours of his time helping keep people in homes, get people medical help, deal with drug and other substance abuse issues, and on and on.
You're assumption that you know enough to judge the Romneys as "out of touch" based on the sorts of comments they've made during a grueling national campaign is... I don't know what it is, but I find it disappointing and frustrating.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I have - in fact, what most people who don't know them personally have - are what they say during the campaign and the policies they advocate. That is generally how we judge candidates. It is what campaigns are for. So those of us who haven't hung out at their house get to know what we can about them.
I am sure lots of people who would make terrible presidents play with their grandchildren and volunteer at their churches.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am sure lots of people who would make terrible presidents play with their grandchildren and volunteer at their churches.
True. And there have been plenty of awful politicians who were "just folks".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not advocating for "just folks" people to be president. I prefer extraordinary people to be president.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I prefer extraordinary people to be president.
Me too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So those of us who haven't hung out at their house.
Also, for the record, I have never hung out at their house. I've never interacted with either of them socially, outside of noticing them when they attended church meetings. And, since it probably wasn't clear from my comment before, I wasn't a member of the Boston/Cambridge stake when Mitt was Stake President. When we got to MA he had already moved from that position to another volunteer position in the church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a bit difficult for me to understand an argument that the Romneys understand, in a personal way, the lifestyles of so-called 'average' Americans. Or to put it a different way, people for whom 'paycheck to paycheck' is, if not their daily reality, something that's not too far removed from their present?
The college remark is a decent example. For most parents who wish to see their children into college, there are only a few options. Ensure that their child does very well in junior high and high school, ensuring a chance at a scholarship and grants and such. Support their child while they take on serious debt. Or take on major debt themselves. And...those are really some of the only ways quite a lot of people will see their children past the doors of a four year university. Taking a 'loss' by sacrificing accumulated wealth isn't an option for many.
Now all of that said, the fact that the financial success of the Romneys isn't a good reason to bar them from the White House. Actually, other things being equal, I'd tend to want the one who has been seriously successful over the one who hasn't. But they're different. Had Democrats (or at least Rosen) not been so stupid in handling this, it could have been a toothy issue for when Romney inevitably attempts to connect on a personal level with voters.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
It still bothers me, Rakeesh. It seems similar to closed-minded Republicans who don't like Barrack Obama because he grew up in Indonesia, or had a Kenyan father, or because he's Ivy League*. He's "different", not "normal", not a "real" American. Some Republicans have taken this to an extremely virulent level, well beyond the relatively benign messaging of the Obama campaign, but at heart it's the same message: "don't vote for him because he's not like you."
I mean, I'm not blind. I know the Romneys are super-rich. They have four houses and a car elevator. They own horses and can afford to send their kids to expensive, private colleges. And I get that their vision could be limited by that. Personally I don't think it is, and I think most of what people draw on when making that inference is specious and driven by self-interested political marketeers.
*Speaking of the maybe inevitability of this ugly side of democracy, Romney's campaign has been dabbling in this same pool, portraying Obama as out of touch because of the time he spent at Harvard. <edit>And if I'm being honest with myself, I did not get similarly outraged over those tactics. We're all, to some extent, owned by our partisan identities.</edit>
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again. The problem isn't that the Romneys are wealthy. The problem is that they don't seem to understand - they certainly don't acknowledge - that they are enormously privileged beyond the experience of most people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It still bothers me, Rakeesh. It seems similar to closed-minded Republicans who don't like Barrack Obama because he grew up in Indonesia, or had a Kenyan father, or because he's Ivy League*. He's "different", not "normal", not a "real" American. They take this to an extremely virulent level, well beyond the relatively benign messaging of the Obama campaign, but at heart it's the same message: "don't vote for him because he's not like you."
While all of these things share roots in a fear of the other, they don't seem very similar to me aside from that. I'll explain why. First of all, America is supposedly founded on the benefits immigration and new perspectives bring us. We're proud, or at least used to be outwardly proud, of the so-called melting pot. Or at least, we used to be supposed to be proud of it. So attacks on that basis seem a bit out of bounds, especially because I simply don't credit (though that's no reason for you to believe it) that appeals to the Republican base criticizing Obama for his foreign experience are anything but fundamentally racist. Man, you start scratching at that piece of carpet and you won't be long from birthed conspiracies, and I don't see much reason to pretend otherwise. My antagonism to this certainly colors my reactions.
Given that fear of the other is the wellspring of so very, very many things about humanity I'm not really sure how reasonable it is to say two things are similar because they share that ultimate motive.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj -
The problem too is that Romney plays into the narrative so often that it's not just the Democrats feeding it. Romney started it himself and the Democrats picked up and ran with it.
Romney keeps making stupid comments about firing people, having tons of cars, calling himself middle class and more. He's trying to be the everyman and it's utterly ridiculous because he's just so far outside the financial concerns of the average American. His blase attitude toward his own wealth suggests how disconnected he is.
I don't think, though, that he's some kind of robot monster. Your post about how he's a normal guy who plays with his kids does nothing to thwart what I'm saying, because at no point has anyone argued that he doesn't love his family, just that he doesn't really understand what it's like for a modern family, right now, to struggle financially.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, well said. I would add one thing. In addition to not understanding what it is like for a modern family to struggle, he doesn't seem to understand that he doesn't understand. If he would at least acknowledge that much, it would be a step forward.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Holy cow, if he ever came close to such an acknowledgment the Obama campaign would roast him until he was bubbling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"My family has been extraordinarily fortunate. I can only imagine the difficulties that families in the middle class are having. Here is how I want to make things better for them..."
Not sure what would be so roastable about that. It reads considerably better than, "I know what it is like to be poor because I had to sell some stock (that was given to me) when I was in college."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. That's not really politically feasible.
If he'd just stop making such boneheaded comments, I'd at least give him the benefit of the doubt on knowing that he doesn't know. But he just keeps spewing them out unprovoked and without warning, like an elitist jack in the box.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "My family has been extraordinarily fortunate. I can only imagine the difficulties that families in the middle class are having. Here is how I want to make things better for them..."
Not sure what would be so roastable about that. It reads considerably better than, "I know what it is like to be poor because I had to sell some stock (that was given to me) when I was in college."
Here's how that sounds:
"Hi, I'm Moneybags Mitt and I don't understand your problems at all. However, despite not understanding them, I've created a series of policies designed to solve them. Now, how's about voting for me?"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Holy cow, if he ever came close to such an acknowledgment the Obama campaign would roast him until he was bubbling.
"Every day of this campaign, I am out in the streets of America, meeting Americans and hearing their stories. I've seen the tragedy that this President's failed economic policies have brought against hard working Americans. I am told, daily, of the struggle people face. [Give specific anecdotal examples relevant to the rally-location.] I know that I do not face the same financial worries as many Americans in my personal life, but I make an effort every day to learn the difficulties Americans face so that on day-one of my Presidency, I can begin to solve the hardships Obama has brought against Americans and pave the road to prosperity. He claims to understand your struggles, but he is cooped up in Washington, listening to lobbyists who pretend to know what you face. I don't listen to those who claim to represent you, I listen to real Americans, who face real adversity, who want real solutions. I listen to you."
I think there's a way to spin it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I agree. Portraying himself as someone in touch with average Americans hasn't been a comfortable fit for Romney. He shouldn't bother. It just makes people mad.
ETA: In reply to Lyrhawn above.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Vadon, nicely worded, but I still think people would get hung up right where he admits he doesn't understand people's financial worries. It would be a sound bite played over and over in Obama's ads. Romney can't afford to throw a lob like that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I agree. Portraying himself as someone in touch with average Americans hasn't been a comfortable fit for Romney. He shouldn't bother. It just makes people mad.
ETA: In reply to Lyrhawn above.
I think the bigger problem is that it does nothing for average Americans who would probably vote for him anyway, and totally pisses off Americans who aren't likely to vote for him.
That's a net negative. You don't lose anything when you fail on any given issue to connect with your base, but when you galvanize the opposition, you're in the red.
I think this is a turnout issue, and possibly a wedge issue with some lower-income independents. And at this point I don't know what he can possibly do to thwart it unless he starts selling sob stories from his early married days, but I'm not entirely sure those stories even exist.
You're right though. Whenever Romney tries his aw shucks "I'm just like you!" routine, I cringe. He needs to change the subject, because that just isn't going to happen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:WASHINGTON -- Poor women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for child care so that they can enter the job market and "have the dignity of work," Mitt Romney said in January, undercutting the sense of extreme umbrage he showed when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen quipped last week that Ann Romney had not "worked a day in her life."
The remark, made to a Manchester, N.H., audience, was unearthed by MSNBC's "Up w/Chris Hayes," and aired during the 8 a.m. hour of his show Sunday.
Ann Romney and her husband's campaign fired back hard at Rosen following her remark. "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Romney said on Twitter.
Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.
Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.
"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"
Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits.
Article has some foot in mouth bs moments but otherwise its been the GOP moving rapidly to the right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
CNN piece on Romney's work as an LDS Bishop. I know the Catalanos, the main subject of the piece, quite well. Also, the organist playing at around 1:25 is my wife. The stock footage was filmed during my ward's church services last Sunday (I'm never on camera, though, even peripherally).
Fanboy bonus, Judy Dushku (interviewed starting at 2:30) is the mother of Eliza Dushku. Eliza was a member of the Romneys' ward growing up (including while Mitt was Bishop), until she stopped coming to church in her mid-teens.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Eliza Dushku was Mormon? :mind blown:
Now I keep thinking of that outfit she wore on the episode of Doll House where she broke her leg riding the motorcycle. It reminded me so much of something from one of my brother's anime shows.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Eliza Dushku was Mormon? :mind blown:
Katherine Heigl, too. And Amy Adams and Ryan Gosling and Paul Walker and Aaron Eckhart. All of them have confirmed growing up Mormon, but have since stopped identifying with the church while still expressing some degree of affection for it (or what, growing up in Logan, UT we would have called "Jack Mormons").
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
President Obama, from the White House Correspondent's Dinner last night:
quote:What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The pit bull tastes delicious.
My question: how does he know the hockey mom doesn't?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can think of half a dozen ways to answer that in the theme intended without actually thinking about it, heh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Somebody remind me why politicians think they know how to manage our economy?
Apparently politicians need 'bailouts' too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the sake of focusing the various political discussions, I'm resurrecting this thread.
Don't feel constrained to post here if you'd like to start a different thread or what not, but I've seen a few different ones pop up and some of them derailed, so if anyone wants to keep it in one all inclusive place for the last two months, feel free to post here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, you weren't intimidated by the sheer power of Romney into not resurrecting this thread?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
My romney thread is going to get shut down and I'm going to get laid off and appear in attack ads about how you are definitely not the change we can believe in.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
son of a
parks i am logging you out for serious
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was thinking about buying all your political threads, making them take out big loans, and then pocketing the profit as I watch them collapse in misery.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In what way would that not constitute, purely in moral terms, theft?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because it just wouldn't shutup! It's capitalism which by nature is good, and also just what Jesus wanted. Rich, powerful, self-interested capitalism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the free market wanted those threads to survive, they would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Couple decent speeches last night.
I liked Deval Patrick's energy (though he had some factual issues).
Michelle Obama gave what might be the best political speech of the last half decade. Impressive stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Her delivery was a bit halting, but it was a good theme, and more importantly I believed that she believed her words.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Michelle's speech was great.
Julian Castro was impressive as well, I thought. Although I have to admit I laughed at John Hodgman's tweeted joke about how the 2016 Dem convention will feature a keynote speech from "Esperanza Hitler-Borg."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is this the place to bring up the observations/criticisms that the mention of "God" was taken out of the Democratic Platform? Not only Fox News Channel, but also ABC News, has commented on this. ABC in fact asked if this meant the party had become "Godless." Even Fox did not go that far, they just kept asking why mention of God was left out.
The head of the platform committee, Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, tried to deflect this criticism (in the interview I watched) by first attacking Fox News Channel Network, and then by calling attention to the section of the platform that speaks favorably of faith-based organizations. But you would think it might have occurred to someone on the committee that leaving out the 2008 platform's mention of "God-given potential" [of everyone] would invite negative comment. Booker also said that platforms really don't matter that much. After all, he said, Romney does not agree with portions of his party's platform about denying abortions to victims of rape or incest. But that of course begs the question of why bother with a platform at all if it does not mean anything? At least Romney stated his disagreement.
A second criticism of the Democratic platform is the fact that the previous reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel was left out. By way of contrast, when Romney visited Israel recently, he explicitly affirmed that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. President Obama may speak glibly about America remaining an ally of Israel, but I think it is a pretty safe bet that the Israelis know who is really a friend of Israel. The only question I have about this is why so many American Jews still tend to vote for Obama and the Democrats.
A third criticism is that unlike the 2008 platform, the 2012 platform does not name Hamas as a terrorist organization that should be "isolated" "until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements."
[ September 05, 2012, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
As an atheist Democrat, I'm thrilled at the exclusion (whether its calculated or not).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As a Catholic Democrat, I am fine with that exclusion as well.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, these are political parties, not Religions. I understand that some on the right get confused by that fact.
As for Jerusalem, except for some evangelical belief that it sounds the way of the second coming, why should the US care what the capital of another country is?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: why should the US care what the capital of another country is?
You must be joking. There are tremendous political implications, and I have trouble believing you don't know that.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You are right Rivka. It is important to the US Government.
It is important to our foreign policy.
There are tremendous international political implications.
There are tremendous implications for the future of Israel, and for whatever non-Israel goverment/state/people live in Jerusalem, but why is it important to the average US citizen or US Political Party.
Certainly support for Israel is important--especially to Americans who are Jewish or Arabic. That could be in the platform.
But why should we put in an American political party's platform something about how another country settles their dispute with their neighbors. You, Israel, want Jerusalem as you God-granted capital. They, the Palestinians or Arabs in Jerusalem want it as their nearer-historically accurate capital.
If, heaven forbid, the Israeli population, tired of war, elect a government that is willing to trade Jerusalem as the capital for a true peace, why should American Democrats stand in the way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there are tremendous political implications for Israel. I think it's ridiculous that Americans should care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You, Israel, want Jerusalem as you God-granted capital. They, the Palestinians or Arabs in Jerusalem want it as their nearer-historically accurate capital.
Way to mis-state and oversimplify.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One correction: It was Senator Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) I heard interviewed on Fox News Channel who got so defensive at the question why the word "God" was left out of the Democratic platform, and reacted by attacking the network, then tried to say that platforms don't matter that much, anyway. (They've been playing snippets of that interview repeatedly on Fox.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm not touching the Israel issue - but why on earth is it important that politicians mention God as often as country singers do?
Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.
Some people are under the misapprehension that, to be American, one must also believe in a god. Particularly the Christian god. Particularly the version of the Christian god of the person who happens to be stating that opinion at any given time believes in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
What on earth are you talking about?
US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.
quote: Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests. ... U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations. Regarding the status of Jerusalem specifically, President Bush had deemed Congress' role as merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority".[26] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress, such as the ones found in the Authorization Act of 2003 that included the Jerusalem Embassy Act's provisions, makes the arguments in favor of legislating foreign policy from Congress extremely problematic if not arguably invalid for that Constitutional reason.
Oh, wait...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.
Romney's position (if by position you mean recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) is the same as the official Democratic platform's position four years ago, as well as both parties' platforms at various times over the past 30+ years. Invariably (or, at least, in every case so far), when a President is elected on a platform that includes recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (as Obama was four years ago), they have then refused to act on the platform, citing (rational) geo-political concerns.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One correction: It was Senator Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) I heard interviewed on Fox News Channel who got so defensive at the question why the word "God" was left out of the Democratic platform, and reacted by attacking the network, then tried to say that platforms don't matter that much, anyway. (They've been playing snippets of that interview repeatedly on Fox.)
That wasn't defensive; that was shutting down a stupid and irrelevant line of questioning. Sen. Durbin was fierce and absolutely right. I am proud that he is my senator (and also, that he attends my church when he is in town, good Catholic that he is.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the 'God' issue, referring to God in the party platform is a tradition of fairly recent advent (particularly for Democrats). Here are the total number of mentions* of 'God' in national party platforms for several previous years:
*A better statistic would be the frequency, given that platforms are much longer now than they were 100 years ago, but I only have so much messing around time.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Clearly, what we need is some sort of quantum superposition that lets both the Israelis and the Palestinians use Jerusalem as their capital.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Democratic National Convention has voted to change its platform to put back into it the sentence about "God-given protential" that had been in the 2008 platform, and also the sentence about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. It is always good to see common sense prevail.
I did not hear whether they added back the language calling for the continued isolation of Hamas unless it ceased supporting terrorism and accepted the right of Israel to exist, which also had been in the 2008 platform, but left out in the current one.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Ron, honest question - does the mentioning of God by the DNC mean that you'll now be likely to vote Democrat?
If not, then why does it matter?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Whoa, lookie there - the Democrats outscored the Republicans in God mentions from 1996-2004. I'm assuming that means that Ron Lambert voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in those years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It disappoints me that those of us whose potential was bestowed upon us by aliens will -- again -- be ignored by the Democrats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It disappoints but doesn't surprise me how willing social conservatives in this country are to insist that their party lie to them.
Trust in politicians is, across the board, low. Hardly anyone is ever really happy with them, and with few exceptions even the best loved politicians are graded on a different level of integrity. But Americans such as Ron insist on being pandered to, and their vote is cheaply bought (though this is true of many) by the mere mention of God in political life.
Of course it's also amusing because religious texts are rife with warnings to be wary of the person who uses the cloak of religion to achieve worldly power, but those advisements seem to be more guidelines. It's also strange that as more and more Americans come to identify with no specific faith at all, God (let's not kid ourselves, Christianity) becomes so much more central.
But anyway, just for fun, let's ask: Ron, why IS support for Israel so important to you? I know why it is, and I suspect more than few here do as well, but I am curious what you'll say.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Are they really just doing a vocal vote based on how loud people are?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
President Bill Clinton gave an excellent speech. If Dems follow his advice from a few months ago and lay off the personal attacks against Mitt Romney and his "sterling business record" (Clinton's words), and use the kind of arguments Clinton used in his speech--and the way he presented them--they might have a chance of winning. If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.
I look forward to the Romney/Ryan response to Bill Clinton's speech, to see how they counter his arguments.
Mucus, you raise a good point. It sounded to me like the "No's" were almost as loud as the "Aye's," all three times the chairman called for the vote. I saw one camara angle that captured the words "In the opinion of the chair, there is a two-thirds majority in favor of the proposal" on the teleprompter for the chairman to read; thus the outcome was a foregone, previously determined, conclusion. The whole thing sure looked confused and disorganized. No one seemed to want to call for a roll call vote, however, probably because of the length of time it would take. Cameras showed that Arab delegates from the Detroit area were loud in their opposition of returning the language from 2008 to the current platform.
It was reported that President Obama himself intervened and demanded that the "God" language and the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" language be returned to the platform. And reportedly he said (at least about the God reference) "Why was it ever taken out in the first place?"
Oh, Rakeesh--just caught your question at the last minute. You are probably wrong if you think you know why I support Israel. I honestly think of the Israelis as the good guys, our only reliable friends in the Middle East. I do not have any particular "prophetic" reason, like you probably associate with mainstream fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their view of end times prophecies differs from mine. I don't see literal Israel as being of any real significance in the prophecies of Revelation.
[ September 06, 2012, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Your predictions are as bad as your reading comprehension. If you disagree, feel free to go reread the brief list of them that were dug up and posted in your thread last week from the previous election.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if your support for Israel is in no way tied up with religion or prophetic claims for the future, then my mistake and I withdraw the accusation.
--------
Nutty coworker on Obama's supposed huge weakness: vague ill define remarks about how Obama looks 'really weak'.
Me: It's actually polling at a very close race, with Obama marginally ahead, and Romney suffering some serious gaps in some pretty important areas and states.
NC: That's all subjective.
Me: Yes, subject to who they will actually vote for.
Nutty Coworker on illegal immigration and healthcare-
Me: Yes, it is a concern, but studies have shown it may be a much smaller problem than people think.
NC: What're you talking about?! *heavy use of sarcasm and incredulous voice and widened eyes*
Me: *points to a study by Arizona's department of health that indicates nearly half of unauthorized residents may have health care through their employers.*
NC: Well that's subjective, and I know five illegals and none of them have health care, and all of them have a bunch of kids.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, yeah, Clinton. What a rhetorical god.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
It really isn't. Or more accurately, that isn't the sum of the matter. The foreign policy implications can matter a big deal. Especially right now, where Iran and Israel are poised for a serious altercation. It's little things like what was in your party platform that inform the otherside as to how you should be treated when you end up at the diplomats table.
It also opens and closes doors in what other countries are willing to do for you ala Israel's neighbors. We are not privy to these conversations, but President Obama's staff has certainly had to provide intelligence and advise to Israel as to how close Iran is to nuclear weapons, and what options they have insofar as including us.
Jerusalem being the capital of Israel in the platform might not be the foundational beam of that state of affairs, but it's just one more tick box. I'm also certain Obama is having frequent dealings with Israel right now, so little gestures like this assist the State Dept and NSA/CIA in coordinating with Israel, so that one day, it won't be the Joint Chiefs doing it in a military encounter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.
Ah, I see.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It also seems newsworthy to me in a different way.
The unreliability of having delegates just shout louder combined with the observation that the speaker does seem to be reading from a pre-determined script when he notices that the vote isn't what he expected (and then continues anyway) is just corrupt.
Politically, it may be a good idea to abuse democracy and screw over the non-religious and Arabs in that vote. But if you're going to pre-determine things, just kill the pretence and don't bother having a vote.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Quite right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, anyone loud enough could have presumably called for a roll call vote. But, then again, both conventions have been ignoring Robert's Rules this year.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.
If the Democrats continue to run this campaign the way they have so far, they will probably win. There has been no deviation in the strength of the current Democratic campaign versus Romney, and they've actually done a (tragically, ultimately) good job of learning lessons from Bush's campaign and they've co-opted the most effective lessons of a Roveian strategy: assault your opponent's strengths and turn them into liabilities.
Your predictions are, to a fault, terrible. None of the reasons that you have posited for Romney winning in a landslide are even remotely probable, and you keep ascribing vulnerabilities to Obama's campaign which are only about what you want to believe, rather than about what the numbers say. I'll dredge up a specific example from this campaign soon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
here we are.
Here we go:
quote: FNC reported that early estimates were that Ann Romney's speech produced a 24 point "bounce" for Romney, and Christie's produced a 10 point "bounce." We will have to wait for further polling in the next few days to see what lasting effect the speeches really had. Of course, conventions always give a multi-point "bounce" to the candidate. That will probably be most pronounced after Mitt Romney gives his speech Thursday night. But it looks like the ticket is off to a good start bouncewise.
This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooo...oooo...
I know! Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Zero, zilch, nada. Zip. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.
That's just an insane number.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Zero, zilch, nada. Zip.
Well, you're much (much, much, much) closer than Ron. Nate Silver estimates the post-RNC bounce for Romney as roughly 2 points, which fell significantly below his model's pre-RNC expectation of a ~4-point bounce.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What was his DNC prediction?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
CNN says 1%. Gallup says none at all.
edit: That was Gov. Romney's bounce.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Right, but remember that this is a question for Ron and Ron's followup assessment of his own predictions.
It is easy to think you are a good assessor of future events when you literally lack the capacity to analyze the shortcomings of your previous predictions.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I would first caution that it's very difficult to discern bounces this close to the events. Being able to differentiate between transient movement, spurious polls, and secular trends on a time scale of a few weeks is very tough, and so all bounce estimates should come with a healthy dose of uncertainty.
That said, the Pollster average would suggest that between the VP selection and the convention, the bounce was somewhere between 0 and 1.5 points (depending on whether you see the increase as part of a secular trend of improving Romney numbers extending back to February, or whether you view it as a temporary, transient effect). Silver had estimated that we should expect a bounce for Romney from the convention alone of about 3.5 points, and a similar gross bounce for Obama, which would be offset somewhat by the tailing off of Romney's convention bounce, leading to a net Obama bounce of about a point, tailing off by about a week after the convention. The estimate is necessarily quite noisy, because not only are there relatively few data points (only a dozen or so Presidential elections have reliable pre- and post-convention polling), there seems to be a trend in the bounce data itself, making the estimation problem that much more difficult.
<edit>Here's the Pollster estimates since mid-February when Romney turned the corner in the Primary. If I were making a narrative from the data, I'd say there was a period of a couple of months where he gained by consolidating Republican support, then a period from May until mid-August of relative stasis, followed by what is probably the front-end of a bounce, but may be futher movement toward Romney.</edit>
[ September 06, 2012, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.
That's just an insane number.
If Jesus gave a speech at the RNC, he would have been selected by acclamation immediately, and Romney's support would have bottomed out since he'd probably have pledged allegiance.
Jesus would ride the wave of popularity into office, whereupon when he actually started governing, his popularity would start to drop steadily, since he wouldn't conform to what anybody else thought. Also, he'd make a lot of people angry by flat our refusing to deal with them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Has anyone read "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (Jennifer Granholm ripped Romney for writing it in her DNC address today). Besides the fact that the title was chosen by the Times, not Romney (he'd asked for it to be titled "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry") the content bears only passing similarity to what Democrats, including the President, construe it as. Taking an imaginary quote out of context and using it to bludgeon your political opponent? Well, obviously there's something about pots and kettles here, and given that Republicans have ridden the "You didn't build that" meme pretty hard I can't complain too loudly, but it's still worth pointing out.
Really, though, I found these paragraphs from the OpEd particularly unexpected given how it's been portrayed:
quote:The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks... Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
<snip>
I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.
In the end, the difference between what Romney was proposing and what Obama did isn't really that great. Obama structured the bankruptcy by using federal money to buy auto company debt, which was different than Romney's proposal to use federal money to backstop private losses (which, according to some restructuring experts, wasn't very feasible). But the hit on Romney (and Granholm hits him hard) is doubly deceitful because (1) it misconstrues what he actually proposed and (2) Obama's course of action (which Granholm lauds) was broadly similar, if different in specifics, to what Romney actually proposed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Obama's speech in just a few moments.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.
That's what I meant about not necessarily being feasible. However, I think your statement assumes that Romney's plan was provide federal money as a backstop, but if not liquidate. It may be (he's never clarified) that if it became clear that the capital wasn't there even with the guarantees, that a more actively managed bankruptcy (similar to what actually happened) would be a better choice. Maybe not, I don't know, but I imagine he's too smart to not see what a bad deal liquidation would be and not accept other potential alternatives, especially those that only marginally differed from what he was proposing.
Regardless, I think it's highly disingenuous of Democrats to portray Romney's position the way they do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.
Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I was not impressed by President Obama's speech. It was not nearly so persuasive as Bill Clinton's on Wednesday night. Obama indulged too much in building straw men, mispresenting the positions of Romney/Ryan. His claim that somehow Republicans are "betting against the American people" is patently absurd, since Republicans are the ones who exalt individualism over dependence upon the government. Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that there are some things government must do; the dividing line comes over how much, how intrusive into individuals' private lives government should be allowed to be.
I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this. What I base it on is the fact that a large portion of the electorate started out knowing very little about Romney, and at first the popular view of Romney was colored by the deliberate attempts of Democrats to demonize him and misrepresent his considerable successes in business (it was Bill Clinton who referred to Romney's "sterling business record" and said Democrats should not attack Romney on it). This tactic of personal attack has only worked somewhat up to now, but it is beginning to have an opposite effect, as more and more people learn who and what kind of man Romney really is. As the nastiness and untruthfulness of the Democrats' attacks against Romney become more and more apparent, that will lose them votes in a major way. This is precisely what Bill Clinton was trying to warn Democrats about.
Obama also repeated his cheap shot about Romney's giving offense to the Brits when he visited there just prior to the Olympics. Many experts had been expressing concern for a long time about security, pointing out that the security firm they hired did not have enough personnel. They also had a serious software problem right on the eve of the Olympics. Since Romney actually had experience running the 2002 Olympics, he should be respected as having the experience to know what he was talking about. The British should have listened to him as a qualified expert, and at least given a more intelligent response, rather than resort to nationalistic posturing designed to save face for the politicians involved. They were very lucky that nothing really bad happened.
I think that the Israelis were very welcoming of Romney, especially of his unequivocal declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Israelis of course as a matter of policy refuse to officially announce their preference between U.S. cadidates. But come on, everyone knows they would prefer Romney--they know they can count on him to really be on their side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And we must, of course, make it abundantly clear to Israel that we are come whatever may under any circumstances that we are on their side. ------ By all means, Ron, continue to predict a landslide loss for Obama. Perhaps when that almost inevitably proves to be incredibly, comically, predictably inaccurate the crow you'll be busy eating will keep you at the table and away from the computer long past November.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm curious, did Ron make a public prediction of the 2008 election?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this.
No, Ron. You are apparently also terrible at reading comprehension. I stated my question very clearly to the extent that it is mystifying that you have misjudged it so clearly and completely. I will put my question in bold and ask you to answer it again.
quote:This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just to be extra abundantly clear, I am asking you if you understood at all what the bounce percentage from the republican convention ended up being. I did not at any time ask you at all how you knew that obama would probably lose in a landslide against romney if they kept relying on personal attacks. I didn't ask you how you knew this because I know you know no such thing.
Anyway, you should answer my real question. Not the one you invented in your head.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
The "bounce" for Romney, was the second time in history (from what I understand, and obviously from the time of polling), that a "bounce" didn't actually happen. At all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.
Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?
Rakeesh, I think my complaint about taking things out of context stands regardless of the imagine/if/maybes in my analysis. The OpEd bears only passing similarity to the caricature of it the Democrats have drawn. Romney said the government shouldn't give the auto industry the bailout they asked for, an it didn't; it gave them a much smaller one. It says the auto industry should be made to go through a managed bankruptcy, and it did. It said that only by decreasing labor costs could the companies refer to profitability, and that's exactly what happened. In fact, it seems like the only parts of his plan that weren't implemented were the limitations on executive compensation and the increase in basic energy research. Funny, no?
Inferring that Romney would have let the auto industry go into Chapter 7 liquidation based on that OpEd (which is exactly what Democrats have done) requires a lot more stretching of the imagination than what I wrote. So I don't think your characterization of my analysis is very reasonable.
As to whether we should expect any better, I guess it shouldn't be disappointing that Democrats are "filling in those blanks" in a way that is intellectually dishonest but politically advantageous; politics is like that (on both sides of the aisle). What I'm realy disappointed by, or at least surprised by, is that after three years it took me reading the OpEd out of personal curiosity to realize how completely Romney's words had been twisted.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This article pretty much sums up the DNC for me...
When the writer started waxing sorrowful for the baby boomers, the pillars of our entire country, I stopped reading, and erased what I had read up to that point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, well your focus is a lot more specific than I realized, Senoj. I thought you were bringing in wider campaign statements and goals as well, not discussing just the OpEd and Romney's statements of the auto industry in this specific instance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's interesting that Peggy Noonan still persists in defining "extremism" as "opposition to the extreme position I hold."
Also, the idea that the Baby Boomers are holding the country together (and have been doing so for years) is pretty laughable, Geraine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Something about Peggy Noonan's persona makes me want to slap her.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And they're doing it themselves, too;)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim?
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
... what the christ.
"partisanship" aside, when did Peggy Noonan become a loathsome anklebiting twit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1989.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:General George Armstrong Custer died in 1876, but that doesn't mean we should forget his legacy of slaughtering indigenous peoples.
That's why Republican National Committee leader and GOP lobbyist Pat Rogers has condemned New Mexico governor Susana Martinez for meeting with American Indians.
In an email sent to Martinez' staff, Rogers wrote—
"The state is going to hell. Col. [Allen] Weh would not have dishonored Col. Custer in this manner."
Allen Weh was a Republican candidate who ran against Martinez.
Rogers is the RNC National Committeeman for New Mexico and a recent member of the RNC Executive Committee. ProgressNow New Mexico is calling for his dismissal.
"Such a blatantly racist statement against our Native people is offensive from anyone, but to come from a national GOP leader and lobbyist for some of our country's largest corporations is indefensible. These e-mails show the contempt and disrespect New Mexico's Republican leadership has for our Native people. Unless they drop Pat Rogers immediately, we can rightly assume that those organizations he speaks for, including the RNC, Modrall Sperling and his lobbying clients, feel the same way."
On the other hand, maybe Rogers was just using "redist" ironically?
How bizarre. When on Earth did Custer ever establish a legacy of anything more than suicidally stupid arrogance and negligence?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here are the actual facts and figures that make it truly hard for Obama to run on his record:
“With the release Friday morning of the August job numbers, there are still 261,000 fewer Americans employed than when Obama became president. Almost a million -- 822,000 -- fewer Americans have permanent jobs.”
“Former President Bill Clinton made the argument Wednesday night: ‘No president, no president -- not me, not any of my predecessors -- no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.’
“But Clinton is wrong.
“Democrats may not want to hear it, but Reagan faced an unemployment rate as high as 10.8% and was able to drive it down below 8 percent within 14 months. By contrast, unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0%, eight months after his “stimulus” was passed, and after another 33 months it is still above 8%.”
“The middle and upper income jobs lost during the recession are being replaced by lower-wage jobs during Obama’s recovery. Middle income occupations accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost from the first quarter of 2008 to first quarter of 2010, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been in lower-wage occupations. While we have lost jobs in skilled construction, real estate, and supervisors, most new jobs are in retail sales and food preparation.”
“U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention.”
“The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.”
“The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000.”
“Friday's report was discouraging throughout. Hourly pay fell, manufacturers cut the most jobs in two years and the number of people in the work force dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.
“In addition to those who've given up looking for work, many young Americans are avoiding the job market by remaining in school. All told, the proportion of the adult population that's either working or looking for work fell to 63.5 percent.
“That's the lowest level in 31 years for the so-called labor force participation rate. The rate peaked at 67.3 percent in early 2000.”
Fox news has a conservative slant, so we don't have to believe anything they say. Find some different sources. Fun huh?!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I have a hard time believing that the Custer thing is not a hoax, satire, or some sort of tone-deaf attempt at a joke.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and by the way, not that you needed to, but that was another excellent example of a failure to answer a direct question about one of your (self) vaunted political predictions, Ron.
It's no wonder your pride in your predictive ability is so great, when you make it a point to behave as if they were never, ever proven wrong, even when people say and point out exactly why they were factually inaccurate.
(This, by the way Dan, is the sort of bul*%#€t I'm talking about. If you still stand by your claim that Ron is not the worst example of this garbage around here, that is.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I wonder how the employment levels would look if Republican senators, representatives and governors hadn't been pushing for more public sector cuts. Budget cuts in education, in emergency workers, in nursing, in government jobs across the board. Public sector job losses were noticeably worse in Republican-controlled states.
So. They refused tax increases, slashed budgets, put people out of work, but it's the other guy's fault. Blaming Obama for the results of their own actions seems to be a running theme this year.
Luckily they saved all those military jobs.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News Channel is the most reliable and informative news source because they do not censor and slant their news the way most other mainstream media sources do. Remember Chris Matthews of MSNBC saying that whenever Obama enters the room, he feels "a tingle down his leg"? Do you really want to get your news from news sources that sent hundreds of "investigative journalists" to Alaska for the sole purpose of trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, when she was picked by Senator McCain to be his running mate in 2008--and every, EVERY negative claim made about Palin was eventually proven wrong, with no retractions or apologies from such foresworn organizations as the New York Times?
What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You seriously think they sent "hundreds of investigative journalists?" Just for practical purposes, why not send, I don't know, 3? or 5? Hundreds would have tripped over each other, and been less effective than a small few skilled investigators.
Hint: this doesn't make sense because it's not what happened. The news agencies sent a few people. Not hundreds. Not even all together. Not even close.
As for your other claims, well, I don't know how to convince you you're wrong other than suggesting that you go out and learn something about journalism. I know you claim to be a journalist, but then that may be why I'm not surprised to hear you think Fox does journalism too.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Ron is an odd conundrum. He writes fairly well for the most part, which would hint at intelligence. Yet when you read the words and process their meaning the veil is lifted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What should be added to the dismal figure of only 96,000 new jobs, is the statistic that 368,000 people have dropped out of the labor force entirely, apparently having given up trying to find a job. If this number were factored in, the unemployment rate would be about 9.1%, according to an expert on Fox News Channel. Some people say that if all the people who have given up seeking work, especially minorities such as African-Americans, were factored in, the unemployment rate would be more than 14%. Which suggests that fewer African-Americans will vote for Obama this time, or even vote at all. Any poll that does not base its conclusions on surveys of "likely voters" should be disregarded, more than usual. Efforts by Democrat-favoring organizations like ACORN will have a much harder time in their "get out the votes" efforts than was the case in 2008. In the case of the Obama presidency, the bloom is definitely off the rose.
Nice try, your Reagan numbers were based on the same rubric, so you either need to factor in those who were no longer looking for a job then as well as now, or you need to stick to the original numbers.
Further, Reagan's issue were stagflation, high unemployment, and a *much much much much* higher federal tax rate and corporate tax rate to toy with. Obama has high unemployment, low investment, high debt sluggish economy, with a rock bottom tax rate, that has nowhere to go but up realistically. But the economy by most account should only get stronger from here *unless* the government interferes, by say, letting the payroll tax cut expire, dropping the home owner's tax cut, ceasing federal subsidizing of student loans so they require payments while a student is in school, and repealing Obamacare with Vouchercare.
You know, rewarding the rich who paid for all their campaigns, while ignoring the middle class and poor who don't vote for them anyway.
I'm sorry, but I still clearly remember what happened from 2001-2008, and it was a stripping of our civil rights, rupturing of the economy, trillions of wasteful spending on the military industrial complex, and piss poor responses to Americans when they needed help (ala Katrina). I credit Pres. Bush for one thing, not standing in the way before Pres. Obama took office. But really the bank bailout was a foregone conclusion, you don't spend trillions of dollars and then let the banking industry collapse while talking about being a fiscal hawk.
Again, according to most economists, the economy should consistently improve if our current policies are pursued. This seems like the prime time for Republicans to rush in, try to scuff things up, get blocked, and then take credit for the economy growing again without having actually contributed to it one wit. But hey, the average voter is stupid anyway, they'll believe whatever narrative they spin to them via Fox News aka "We intentionally report incorrect party affiliation when Republicans screw up, but not vice versa."
I'll be damned if I'm going to let the guy who created much of the mess, back in right as most of the cleanup is being done, and then ride that horse for decades to come in every future election.
[ September 08, 2012, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Contemporaries of Obama who say he wants to start a revolution: truthful. Contemporaries who say that's absurd: lying.
Once again Ron's fundamentally dishonest way of evaluating politics serves to 'prove' the conclusion he already believed in. Shocking!
Still haven't answered Samprimary's question re: convention bump, Ron. It's not going to to away. Still haven't disavowed the lie you told with respect to the video, either. That's still on the books. Now I know you lack both the integrity and the guts to do so, but I wanted to take a moment to remind you.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Because everything one believes in college is still exactly the same as what one believes at 51 years old.
The fact that you're even predicting a 'race war' in 21st century America, Ron, shows how far off your ideas about the world really are. Plus, I guess in your head Obama's process goes: 1) Lose election 2) Start 'race war' 3) ?????? 4) Communism! Yay!
Uh huh. Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I wonder if Obama will follow tradition and be gracious in his concession speech, or will denounce the election result as racism, and make such intemperate remarks that he stirs some people up into starting a race war. He might see that as one way to get the communist "revolution" that contemporaries in college said Obama believed in.
Hahahaha race war? Are you serious? Sooo, what's your Free Republic username?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Since you keep using Fox News, I'll keep using Snopes.
Obama was involved in exactly one case like this. Banks were already giving bad loans to white customers with similar financial situations, Obama's firm sued banks for discriminating based on race. The banks should have either stopped issuing bad loans, or issued bad loans to everybody not just white people.
That sounds fair doesn't it Ron? Banks were already issuing bad loans with teaser interest rates, then bundling them into credit default swaps and selling them off to other banks. What's wrong with making sure banks can articulate why they didn't give a loan to a black family when they gave the exact same loan to a white one?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
I am content to allow people to review the evidence for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Unlike you, who seem determined to tell everyone else what you think has been proven. Your whole argument is based on personal attacks against me. I am willing to allow God to be the final judge on who is more truthful and more perceptive.
Bella Bee, you may not think it is possible now. But consider the cultic following that Obama has. If he is the pathological narcissist that some expert observers have claimed he is, then there does exist a real danger that he might react badly to losing the election, so badly that he uses his "charisma" to stir up violence among his diehard supporters. I predicted this four years ago. My prediction is still quite possible of coming true. I hope Obama has better sense. But I am not certain that he does. If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: If it does happen, remember that I warned you. It is more possible than you obviously want to believe.
The question is, Ron, when it doesn't happen, will you remember that you predicted it? Will you admit that you were wrong and apologize for speaking ill of others? No? Thought not.
(By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of so many of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If there is a God, and it is a god of truth, then you should be frightened, because you are a liar, and because you have a liar's heart.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: [QUOTE] (By the way, had it ever occurred to you that having such low expectations of your country's inhabitants - especially when it's as unrealistic and off the wall as this prediction - suggests that you might actually be incredibly unpatriotic? No? Thought not.)
Not far under the surface of the rabid neo-con platform is the sad truth, that most of these people hate America. But they need to "Love America" because "patriotic" is how they define themselves. Never mind their hatred of their countrymen and country. But, and not to automatically invoke any false-equivalences, that is common of any extreme viewpoint that elevates the self-worth of a narcissist- Michael Moore hates America about as much as Ron does. They love themselves, and here is no room for country or for subtlety in that equation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse?
No and no, actually.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: By the way, BlackBlade, speaking of those who created the "economic mess," didn't lawyer Barack Obama participate in class action lawsuits designed to compel banks and mortgage companies to give mortgages to many people who really could not afford them? And is that not what caused the real estate collapse, that was at the heart of the whole economic collapse? That being the case, then Obama is one of the people primarily and directly responsible for creating the economic mess.
Litigation against so-called "red-lining" by lending institutions, a practice which is illegal, did not, in any way, contribute to the mortgage bubble. Not in any way. Had you *any* understanding of these events, you would know that. You do not. Instead racist innuendo and blatant falsehood is all you have. This is quite sad- this whole line of reasoning is embarassing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I do still deny I lied about anything. Your perception of things is not truth no matter how many times you vainly and snidely repeat it, nor has any power to make true what you want to be true. If that is your attitude, then you are as bad a narcissist as Barack Obama himself.
You lied about what was on that video. You lied about Democrats being able to embrace spending cuts. You're also now lying about your predictions for the Republican convention-you weren't just reporting the reports of others, you agreed with them and went on to add your own emphasis.
It's not snide to have contempt for your dishonesty and cowardice when you so plainly exhibit them. You can deny it all you like, and I know you will, because for whatever profoundly batty reason your own repetitions and assurances carry so much more weight than plain black and white quotes.
But *whenever* you have one of these discussions, you end up being the lone wacky voice in the wilderness. You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best. The more likely interpretation is simply that you're another partisan hack, a liar who vets reality on the basis of whether it conforms to his own agenda, and who believes it CANNOT be dishonest to carry the party's water. Well, it is, and what's more we all know it is. There's a reason people who don't conform to your partisan agenda recoil from your politics and predictions, and they do. They do here and wherever else you share them. It's because the only way you can appear both sensible and honest is to remain among the choir.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: BlackBlade: So you do admit that Obama did participate in such lawsuits against banks, to try to force them to grant mortgages to people who could not afford them. Just because he focused on black people also getting their share of mortgages they could not afford does not change the fact that Obama participated in the very thing that produced the real estate collapse that in turn triggered the economic collapse.
No, you don't understand. LISTEN! Obama was involved in *one* suit against Citibank. Citibank was already handing out bad loans, of their own volition. Think of it this way.
Credit = A, B, or C Where A is great, B is moderate, C is crap.
Smith Family Credit = C | Smith Family Ethnicity = White
Johnson Family Credit = C | Johnson Family Ethnicity = Black
Smith families were qualifying for loans, without any issue. Obama's law firm agreed to represent a host of Johnson families who though they had similar credit ratings the bank was denying Johnsons loans. There's no empirical evidence that white people pay off their loans and black people do not. Nor could the bank adequately demonstrate that every Johnson family who applied for loans had substantially worse credit than the equivalent Smith family. So the bank was sued for unequal lending practices, and settled out of court.
And no, banks being forced to be fair in their lending practices is not what created the housing bubble, and the subsequent collapse. It wasn't Bill Clinton forcing banks to give loans to the poor. It wasn't even George W. Bush's fault, though he was president when the house of cards started falling.
Now, if you just found yourself agreeing with that last sentence Ron, then the only rational conclusion you must also make is that Obama's role in the crisis must equal to or less than Bush's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for Samprimary's questions about "Convention Bump," I merely reported what was said by the commentators on Fox News Channel. They may have been referring to their tally of Twitter responses to speakers at the convention. Obviously there were no regular polls available within hours of any given speech.
Do.
You.
Know.
What.
The.
Convention.
Bump.
Ended.
Up.
Being.
It is not a difficult question. You could give me a percentage, or you could say "no, i never followed up on that."
I will continue to bring this up until you can actually answer the question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
No. You ask that people remember not what you said, but your bizarre dishonest interpretations of what you said after the fact-when you can even be brought to admit you said something that even *might* have been a wild-ass absurd prediction, or an outright lie.
For example, you lied about spending and Democrats. You said they would never get behind spending cuts. It's a fact that you made that claim. You can and will lie all you like about it, but it was still said by you. And then when you were presented with factual evidence that Democrats CAN endorse spending cuts, even big ones, you suddenly had nothing to say.
So yes, we will remember what you say. We'll remember that in addition to putting forward comically absurd predictions about the future (Obama starting a race war, Romney winning in a landslide under any circumstances short of sudden major scandal), you're also willing and even proud to tell transparent lies and smugly claim they were true.
So you don't need to ask anyone to remember. The spectacle of you is memorable enough.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., all I ask is that you remember what I said.
Don't worry Ron, I will remember what you said because for whatever reason "Crazy" and "Insane" always tends to stick around for a longer period of time. Possibly it's because I joke about the discussions with friends, or maybe it just has a lasting impression because I get a kick out of seeing how crazy people really are.
Either way, I can assure you I will continue to remember what you said, and continue to think of you as a crazy person. Until Dec 21st of course, because then the other crazies say the world will end, and after that I won't have any memory of these forums.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... You're not the rare wise prophet society scorns, you're merely a more well spoken and presumably better groomed guy with a sandwich board with slogans and exclamation points-and that's at best.
With an oddly large and engaged crowd on the sidewalk Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Romney thinks black people are only 3/5ths of a person?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well to be fair he *also* believes that part of the Constitution should be amended to change that to 1:1.
I did get a kick out of the following from Wikipedia,
quote:Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world," and said he "doubted whether anything short of it would do in America." In his "Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States," John Adams said "the English Constitution is, in theory, both for the adjustment of the balance and the prevention of its vibrations, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."
Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
For one thing, they're all dead.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For one thing, they're all dead.
That's blasphemy to talk about the founding fathers that way! Speaking about them like they're just normal fallible humans like everyone else. For shame.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, there's no denying he puts on a good show! So does Clint Eastwood. Not voting for him, either;)
-----
Romney on Romney: he is 'as conservative as the Constitution'. Heh heh heheheheh.
Romney thinks black people are only 3/5ths of a person?
Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever. Both outlooks seem to me to require a LOT of squinting and tilting of heads.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Speaking about them like they're just normal fallible humans like everyone else.
Of course they aren't.
I told you: DEAD.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
So are most people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: So are most people.
A point.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Oh, there's that of course, and many other gems, but mostly I was having a little giggle at the notion of the Constitution as a conservative document, as well as the (implied) notion that the Founders meant for it to remain as it was forever.
Maybe he was just trying to say in a round-about way that his political views can be changed by new evidence.
e.g. Romney 2012: My views are subject to an Amending Formula
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why don't our founding father's realize that what's good for other countries is *not* good for America!?
For one thing, they're all dead.
They live on in Romney's heart.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
"um...well..."
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Thread Denizens: I've had to think about this thread as late, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things being said here. While I haven't put a stop to it as soon as I noticed it as I should have, I'm going to ask you all to self-police.
I'm not comfortable with calling posters "crazy" or "insane". If it was honestly believed, and was being delicately approached from a "Seek help, please!" angle, I might allow it, but when it's being used to basically negate anything a posters says as nonsense, then we are in denigrating another poster territory.
If a poster is spouting off their opinion, and ignores all evidence to the contrary then the correct response is to tell the poster you have no intention of conversing with them until they respond to the things you've already said, or that they are being dishonest when they pretend you haven't said anything but that they expect you to respond to them.
I will handle posters who demonstrate bad behavior but are technically within the TOS. But I've let a few too many comments stand, that I wouldn't have on another day, and that's not right on my part.
Thanks for reading and considering my words.
Sorry, that's my fault. I will refrain from publicly mentioning what I think about specific people.
There is something to be said though, that if someone says something that is a "crazy" opinion, they might not realize it if people need to coddle them and be PC. I won't mention specifics as I don't want to call anyone out right now.
For the record I think the same thing about people with their 9/11 conspiracies against Bush. Also many other "fringe" beliefs.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Overblown headline, but still funny:
Personally I was more shocked that something like 4% of "Liberals" think Romney killed Osama bin Laden.
As a member of the military for 11 years, I know where the arguments come from about people claiming "He didn't do it, the Seals did." and that's fine. If they want to have that position, whatever. I know it's wrong, but possibly they really don't.
The "Leaders" (Of which regardless of your beliefs or politics, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the Military) always get the short-end of the stick when an operation is successful. No credit, or little credit. Granted we all know they (including CO's etc.) weren't on the ground, but we ALSO know if the operation goes horribly wrong, the right would be screaming to high heaven about how Obama is a bad leader, and it's all his fault since he is overall in charge.
Now on that note: How could anyone who has followed any news release or hasn't been living under a rock for the last year think that ROMNEY would get credit for Osama? That's the part I just couldn't understand from that article.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: After the 90 minute "discussion" I had with my aunt and uncle the other day, I'm no longer shocked at things Republicans will believe.
They refused to believe anything other than the fact that Obama gave Solyndra $500 Billion, and that that was only the tip of the iceberg.
Then they urged me to see "2016."
Ugh. This past week and into the upcoming one I'm dealing with lots of "2016" proponents. My favorite exchange was this,
"Before you hate on this movie, think about the energy Fahrenheit 9/11 gave you, and channel it into seeing this one."
"I hated Fahrenheit 9/11. It's a worthless piece of garbage designed to help people who already didn't like Bush clap themselves on the back."
"um...well..."
Yeah, those were pretty much my thoughts on it as well. I've read up on 2016 a little bit, and I've yet to read a single thing that convinces me it's worth watching as anything but outrageous comedy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've seen a few of D'Souza's debates, and he strikes me as exactly the sort of intellectual who would, well, win acclaim from extreme right conservatives, though not quite as shamefully sleazy as Moore who I haven't been convinced actually believes what he puts out since I first encountered his stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really don't like Bill Maher, but even I had to *nod* during this exchange with D'Souza.
*Warning language.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow. D'Souza's recollection of the ACA debate is drastically different than my own.
And that's probably the biggest assemblage of cherry picking I've seen in a long, long time. He drops logical fallacies with every other breath.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney was actually the SEAL on the ground who punked Osama, presumably styling his chrome deagle with the side-grip fire and eating an 'iced cream' with the other. An invisible, generically genial killer. Know him from how he moves in the shadow, visible only by the soft glow of two strips of white side hair and the glint of a flag pin. There one second, gone the next, vanished like a picture on an etch-a-sketch.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Sounds like a fantastic headline, right - after all, who cares about what the rest of the world - (especially the French!) think about the POTUS.
Except the same poll found that Romney would make the US much more popular in Pakistan, The Middle East and North Africa. Gee, I wonder why that could be? It's probably that whole secret Muslim thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's hard not like Philadelphia mayor Micheal Nutter. Here's a clip of him trying to figure out what one of the higher ups in the Tea Party Express means when she says that President Obama doesn't love America.
---
edit: Honest question, are there representatives of the Tea Party, especially those elected to office, who people on Hatrack who support the Tea Party are proud of and consider exemplars of their movement? I've been to a couple of local Tea Party group meetings and was very unimpressed and the same is true from what I've seen of the more national Tea Party presence, but it is entirely possible that I'm not seeing the shining stars in the movement and I'd like to be fair to them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems, from what I've seen of his work, to be his style. But strangely I still generally get an impression of sincerity from him when I hear him speak. He's full of s*#t of course, but still the contrast is to me striking.
Moore is bombastic and D'souza is softer-spoken, but I'm not all that convinced that there is all that much difference below the surface. D'souza seems intelligent enough that I have a hard time believing that he's as sincere about the validity of the various wackadoodle claims he makes as he superficially seems to be.
I know some fairly intelligent people who honestly believe some wackadoodle things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You could be completely right, Matt. I'm really more just speaking to the impression I get of him as a person-in situations designed to the people appearing to put their face on. If I had first encountered him in print, I suspect my first impression would be quite different.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I really don't like Bill Maher, but even I had to *nod* during this exchange with D'Souza.
*Warning language.
That was satisfying. D'Souza is a terrible, terrible person. I mean, how can someone use "anti-colonial" as a criticism? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it helps to have been really thoroughly colonized.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Maher seems awesome here, is he usually this on the ball with the facts?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of back and forth today between Romney and Obama over the attacks in north Africa. Hard to say how the public will respond. I suspect Romney's "he's apologizing for America" line will go over well, despite the fact that Obama himself said nothing of the sort, and has been solidly angry in his responses.
I suspect Obama's outrage at Romney playing politics will also score points with his base.
Personally, I'm rather blah about the whole exchange. I knew from the moment the attack on the embassy happened exactly what both sides would say, and it's rather tiring having to actually listen to it.
ETA: This article clears up the timeline of what happened and how the political statements match up with it. It would appear that Romney is rather grossly misrepresenting what was said and when it was said, and what it means.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He is.
Charles Blow:
quote:The Romney camp should learn a lesson from journalists: wait until you have the facts. It’s better to be second and right than first and wrong. Knee-jerk reactions can make you look like a jerk. But after offending the British on his Olympics trip and labeling Russia our “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Mitt was already well on his way to proving that he is a diplomatic disaster. This week the Russian president, Vladimir Putin thanked Romney for the label, saying that it had helped Russia because it had “proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems.”
Yeah, thanks Mitt.
Dana Milbank:
quote:NBC News reported on Tuesday morning that Mitt Romney’s campaign was “throwing the kitchen sink” at President Obama: With prospects fading, the Republican challenger was trying any and all lines of attack to see what might stick. But the problem with throwing the kitchen sink is you might break a pipe — and then you’ve got a real mess.
His latest comments are something which go a little bit beyond what I would just go ahead and laugh at him for. He is showing the depths of concern that the country needs to have for a strategy of essentially lying, misleading, or otherwise jumping on any expedient political point to fire up conservatives — no matter the cost to concerns exterior to his bid to the presidency.
And, in this case, if it turns out to have been a hotly inexcusable comment that will only fly with the Ron Lambert level conservative apologia, work on the strategy of doubling down and never letting it go, until it right-out screws your horseshit campaign. On top of everything else his party (Akin and the War on Women, etc) could do to him.
Ah! he even gave the Smirk again too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Seems like he's one of the few moderates in the Republican party according to his Wikipedia article. Broke ranks quite a few times with his party, used to be a Democrat.
Still some bad behavior here and there, but I can't find anything about racism.
Walter Jones is only moderate in the way that Ron Paul is moderate; he has crossover appeal for social liberals because of his libertarianism. But his libertarianism also puts him at odds with things like the Civil Rights Act, and creates a natural constituency for him of white supremecists (see also: Ron Paul's newsletter scandal).
To be clear, I'm not familiar with the radio show in Samp's link, and generally I've found that things posted to somethingawful have a strong anti-GOP bias, so I'm not satisfied that the presentation of facts accurately reflects reality. Rather, I'm just saying that libertarian-leaning Republicans (like Walter Jones) and organizations promoting 'white power' have some natural affinities.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
brb changing vote to romney
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Reality has a strong Anti-GOP bias.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The mainstream media is not reality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The mainstream media is not reality.
That's right. It so often says things that are proven to be false, and it's easy to point to why. So it can't be said to accurately represent reality.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Obama's post-convention bounce is beginning to fade, allowing us to judge how big the bounce was (not that bounce-size is predictive of anything).
Based on the Pollster national chart, if we act under the assumption that Romney got no bounce at all from his convention or the Paul Ryan pick, the poll average went from an Obama advantage of +0.7 to an advantage of +3.6, meaning about a 3 point bounce (it's now decreased to an Obama +2.1 and I anticipate it will continue to fade to an Obama +1.5 or so, which is about where things were prior to the conventions). Personally, I think Romney received a small (~1 point) bounce between his VP pick and the convention, making Obama's convention bounce more like four points.
That's not a large bounce by historic standards, but it's fairly similar to what recent incumbents (e.g. Bush and Clinton) got out of their conventions. On the whole, convention bounces seem to have been decreasing in size over the past 50 years, with Clinton's mammoth bounce out of the '92 convention the exception to the rule. I attribute this to a voting populace that's more politically engaged earlier in the process, as well as structural changes in the purpose and timing of the conventions.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Do we really think that this election is a contest? It's pretty much a foregone conclusion. Huntsman was the only decent candidate the GOP had, and they failed to realize it at the time.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Do we really think that this election is a contest?
I do (others may disagree). I think Obama's had and continues to have an advantage, but his relatively small (by historic standards) lead is in no way insurmountable, even with less than two months until the election.
As for Huntsman's chances, I'm less sanguine about his abilities than you. I think people (including him) overreacted to his poor showing in the NH primary, but his campaign provided very little evidence that they had the stamina or the innovativeness to run a real national campaign. Generally moderates perform better (although it's not clear how much more moderate Huntsman was than Romney), but I think there are a lot of unknowns about how a national GOP audience would have reacted to Huntsman as a real contender. I do hope he comes back strong for 2016 (or 2020 if Mitt wins), with a more attuned message, more vigor and a better organization.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Obama supporters who think this election is a "foregone conclusion" are nearly as delusional (read: roughly 2% less) as their Republican counterparts like Ron Lambert. Based on current polling, Obama is ahead, but his leads in critical battleground states are slim enough that a nation-wide shift towards Romney by just 1-2 points could be enough to return the race to a dead heat. Add another point towards Romney and the electoral map suddenly favors the Republican.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't treat this as foregone. Just worth sitting on. Good luck to all involved, of course, but most of the speculative period is over. We can only sit and see if anything shows up to give back Romney his shot. Given a static election environment with no shakeups in Romney's favor, obama wins at about 300 or so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Some takeaways from this:
- While I suspect it may be closer to what he really thinks than his feel-good public persona, he changes directions so often this could just be him playing to the crowd. Only this time the crowd is millionaires. - That 47% includes all the people who filed tax returns but paid no liability, and those who didn't file. That includes people who didn't make enough to be taxed further, and it includes people who paid enough in payroll and state taxes to come out even or get a refund. It also includes the roughly 10% of Americans who are retired. - It also includes the hedge fund managers, real estate investors, or other wealthy financiers who combine capital gains with the tax-loss carryforward and other legal dodges to avoid paying taxes. - The growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely due to Republican tax policies. The earned-income tax credit was started by Ford and expanded by Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. G.W. Bush added the child credit and that bumped the number higher. This party has campaigned and pushed for decades for lower taxes, but they still enjoy mocking those who don't pay any. I thought that was the goal? - Best of all, nine of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers are Republican-leaning states.
None of this is surprising. What angers me, what honestly angers me, was this:
quote:"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A nice breakdown of the 47% of non-tax-paying Americans Romney is ready to dismiss.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I wonder if Mitt knows that what Mitt says to rich guys behind closed doors is quite relevant to my decision this election. What I've heard from these leaks isn't good for him.
I want a president who believes in a system built on ensuring that people have basic human necessities like food and health care, and the opportunity to pursue happiness. Despite his assumption, I don't think people mean that requires the government hand these things out directly to all those 47%. I am concerned about someone who wants to be president who wants to protect rich people's money so hard that he doesn't think it's his job to make sure America is a place where people don't starve in poverty.
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Yeah, it really is, Mitt. Your job as president would be president of everyone. If you can't do that, if you're ready to dismiss half the country, you can't do the job.
Why for all that is good and holy, does this nonsense about people not paying taxes come up with republicans. Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes. Those who don't *can't*. Honestly, who in hell does Mitt Romney think these people are? What, they have jobs and money and just don't pay? What's the message? I don't care about these people because they don't make any money?
What do you do, take 10% from somebody making the bare minimum? Jut to terrorize that class of people a little bit more?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
As much as I'd love to join the bandwagon on how this is the 1% admitting they don't care about 47%, a more real deficiency in the Governor Romney campaign was demonstrated.
These were comments directed to a specific audience. Comments he knew they would believe because they are comments that make the millionaires in the audience feel morally superior.
1) He changes his stated beliefs for each audience and refuses to be pinned down to specifics because those specifics will be used against him. This means we have no idea what his true beliefs are. We just have his word on what they are, and that word changes...often. What can we believe?
2) His comments have little to do with facts. His press people have stated that they will not let their campaign be run by fact checkers. We can read that to believe that it won't be run by facts. If his campaign won't be run by facts what evidence do we have that his work in office will be guided by them.
We already had 8 years of a President who let loyalty and beliefs be more important than facts. When he ignored the facts we invaded Iraq. When he ignored the facts we get phrases like "Good Job Brownie". Do we risk another president who will not be guided by facts?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote: A college professor has been placed on leave after she allegedly forced her class to sign a pledge to vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections.
Early last week Professor Sharon Sweet at Brevard Community College (BCC) allegedly told students to sign a pledge that reads: “I pledge to vote for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket.”
The pledge was printed off of GottaVote.org, a website funded by the Obama campaign.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Haha, wow. The comments on that article are the best part of the story though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: A nice breakdown of the 47% of non-tax-paying Americans Romney is ready to dismiss.
I have had Sharon Sweets in college before and they drive me nuts. I have no sympathy for the teachers who are taking time I am supposed to be using to learn important things and having them get turned into Advanced Mindnumbing Partisanship
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, glad to hear she was disciplined.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was watching the news of the leaked romney video for most of my flight yesterday. This was my summary experience of flipping through the channels:
- CNBC: Romney seems to really be in trouble now - CNN: Will this be the worst trouble of the Romney campaign - MSNBC: Romney probably on fire IRL now - Fox News: Uh, ... muslims are .. doing something, over there
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting that Romney's response is to double down. He didn't even try to parry or explain it away. I guess this is one of those issues that's too close to the talking points to try and disavow as far as the base goes, but, still, that's really something.
You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.
The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.
"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.
Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
I was so pleased last week. Still, I am optimistic that indefinite detention is finally on the way out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.
The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.
"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.
Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
He literally says in those same videos he will punt on the Israel / Palestinian situation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.
This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
...So it's really the Republican's fault? I don't know, for me, I think the Obama administration should bear maybe a little of the blame, seeing as how they are the ones actually doing it.
To put it another way, that's quite a Lambertian mind pretzel you've got going on there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That, if anything, is an objectionable portrait of democrats? That if given the opportunity to incorporate evils it can get away with due to the broken intransigence of the Republicans (and the knowledge that liberals aren't really offered a choice in this election) they'll coast on being merely a lesser evil rather than a principled counterpoint to the administration before it?
And it comes as part of a larger observation about how dangerous a situation is created when you have a two party situation in which one party progressively begins to collapse; when one party is not a valid choice, the other soon finds no need to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Romney calls for more Americans to pay tax and be like Canada
quote:It’s hard to match up the numbers from the Canada Revenue Agency exactly but comparable data found here show that for 2009 tax year, the most recent available, about 33.9 per cent of people who filed tax returns did not pay any federal or provincial taxes, which are typically based on the same income figures used for federal tax. About 17 million people who filed returns paid federal and provincial taxes.
So, the deadbeat 47 per cent that Romney cites would be about 34 per cent in Canada.
quote:about 4 minutes in on tape one, Romney starts to talk about what he refers to as “the Jimmy Carter election”, i.e., 1980. He then goes on to talk about how the hostage crisis and the failed rescue mission Desert One were pervasive issues through the 1980 election. Then at the end he says that “if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”
This is months before the Libyan / Egyptian protests, remember.
Boy it's a good thing he is such an unambiguous bunghole ~~
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Is there a difference between the candidates? This (humorous) mashup seems to suggest not.
That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win. Exploiting your opponents misfortunes is part of that. Obviously there are limits, but if Obama actually scuffs up on foreign policy it's expected his opponent can use that against them. Unforunately for Romney, he picked the wrong criticism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.
quote:This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote: This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.
quote:This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote: This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama hasn't gone there, but you have to know exactly how the GOP would have played it if the situation was reversed and a Democrat attacked a sitting GOP president during that sort of incident.
How DARE they attack America in its hour of need?!
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president. [/QB]
It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Slavim:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"
I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.
It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line. [/QB]
Not if you honestly believe that the much more important and greater crime is that freedom of expression was being attacked.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How exactly was freedom of expression being attacked? Freedom of expression doesn't mean that expression can't be condemned or criticized. Just that it can't be prohibited. No one suggested that the reckless, arrogant, piece of crap film was illegal.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Several people have, in fact, suggested that the creator of the film ought to be arrested. By "several people" I mean several Americans. Pundits and journalists and stuff, not random crazies on the street.
The fact is that there is a not-insubstantial group of people within our country who really do seem okay with curbing freedom of expression so as not to rile up angry violent Muslims. It's a really dumb position to take, for lots of reasons. It's essentially both cowardly appeasement and racist fearmongering, which would be impressive if it weren't so pathetic.
But yeah, freedom of expression doesn't shield you from criticism, I'm 100% in agreement with you there Kate.
I will just add: "Condemn" is a tricky word. If by that you basically just mean "criticize and insult," then I'm still with you. If you mean something stronger than that, then I'm not sure anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those several people were not the people that Gov. Romney was attacking. I am trying to understand how Gov. Romney supposedly thought that President Obama's administration was attacking freedom of expression.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a blow-by-blow of what the Administration knew and when. State knew what Cairo was putting out, and expressed concerns about the language, but the PA chief in Cairo ignored them. The Administration evidently privately expressed frustration to the Cairo office all day without publicly distancing themselves from the statement, even as Cairo repeated it after the embassy was breached (while including a condemnation of the ongoing violence). It wasn't until Romney's public condemnation that the Administration distanced themselves publicly from what they'd felt all along was a poorly worded press release.
I think Romney's biggest mistake was conflating the press release with the Administration out of a desire to push the (fallacious) 'Obama is an apologizer' meme. However, I think the administration can rightly be criticized for not making its concerns over the press release public sooner. I think Romney stretched it pretty far when he tried to hold Obama accountable for the statements of a bull-headed embassy staffer, but I think it's completely valid to say "Hey, this statement was wrong, you knew it was wrong, and your administration should have immediately stood up and said it was wrong."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I know what state felt was wrong about the press release
quote:It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'
I don't think either Cairo's statement of the SoS's statement attacked freedom of expression, but I do think the Cairo press release failed to adequately recognize the fundamental American belief that people have a right to be offensive without being threatened with violence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is the text of that statement, btw.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?
The issue isn't that the embassy tried to calm the situation, it's that it did it in a way that is unrepresentative of core American values. It's not just me that feels that way, it's the administration as well. And they felt that way even before the attacks. In this case, I think the administration is right; the statement (even as I agree with its sentiment) did not accurately reflect US values.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What core values? Why do you think it was important for the [i]embassy in Cairo[/i,] given that the task of an embassy is diplomacy, to defend this film. The freedom to make this film was not threatened. When I write that the film was a reckless piece of garbage am I attacking our core values?
And getting back to the point, do you really think that Gov. Romney was trying to defend freedom of speech (which was not threatened by the embassy's statement) or trying to score political points?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
Kate: The embassy grounds are American territory. If you don't make it clear that American laws apply there (including the bill of rights) not the host country's, certainly not mob law, then all of our embassies are at risk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Waiting for Ron's landslide any time now...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
BladeBlade and Peter -
As Kate said, the statement came out before the embassy was breached. Affirming the American belief in tolerance and acceptance of all religions and peoples is not an undermining of American principles at all, it's a actually a pretty big part of who we claim to be. Religious freedom and freedom of expression often clash messily in America, and there's no one universal way we've deal with it in the past, but I see nothing fundamentally off with the Cairo Embassy's statement as an attempt to blunt outrage, and given what happened, it seems a pretty wise proactive move.
I'm not sure I see the issue here. After the embassy was breached, I'm down with the use of force to suppress the incursion, and with the flowery apologies going away, but before the violence starts, that's when you're supposed to cool tensions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
You keep saying that and I keep asking defending from what?. Why does our embassy need to have, in that particular moment, defended a right that wasn't in danger? Had the embassy said that the ******* who made the film had no right to make the film, they would have been wrong. But they didn't come anywhere close to saying that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, not to get caught up on language, but one could infer from the expected protest that inherent in Muslim complaints about the movie, and in specific complaints about it not being banned, Muslim protesters were in fact attacking our level of freedom of expression.
So the Embassy's condemnation of the movie could look more like a nod to the protesters than to upholding our belief in the right to mass produce insulting filth.
On the other hand, I think BB would be better served saying "reaffirming" rather than "defending," but either way, I don't think they were under any obligation to do so. That strikes me as nonsense political double talk.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Let me try an analogy; I doubt it'll go well (such things seldom seem to), but here goes.
The other day I was in a bar and a woman came in dressed in a revealing halter top and Daisy Duke shorts. One of the women in my group said, "Boy, women really shouldn't dress provocatively like that." Her husband just looked away. Later, some guys start hassling the woman and one of them yanks her top off and pulls off her shorts. My friend says to the group, "Wow, that's awful. They shouldn't be doing that. But she shouldn't have come in here dressed so provocatively, either." Later that night, we found out the woman was raped and murdered in a bar across town.
Now, I wouldn't say my friend's slut-shaming comments were an assault women's freedom to dress how they want, and I certainly think it's silly to call out the husband saying the woman was speaking for both of them. I would however say my friend's statements failed to accurately reflect most people's sense of moral sentiment, and that we should expect better from people (particularly authority figures, like representatives of the US government).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure the analogy translates. It would seem you're boiling it down to blaming the victim, but I fail to see how the embassy statement can be pigeonholed as blaming the victim.
Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
A better analogy would be, provocatively dressed woman walks into a mosque and sits down. Someone says, "wow, that's really disrespectful and insulting, she shouldn't have done that."
On a side note...what bars are you going to?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.
I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.
As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs? Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.
I think BlackBlade is correct.
Muslims threaten Americans. The Obama administration threatens freedom of speech via Google. Google stands up for free speech, *not* the government. If anything, Google had to defend the freedom of speech from Obama.
quote: On Thursday, the Obama White House called executives at Google, the parent company of YouTube, and "requested" that the company review whether the disgusting anti-Muslim film that has sparked such unrest should be removed on the ground that it violates YouTube's terms of service.
In response, free speech groups such as the ACLU and EFF expressed serious concerns about the White House's actions. While acknowledging that there was nothing legally compulsory about the White House's request (indeed, Google announced the next day they would leave the video up), the civil liberties groups nonetheless noted – correctly – that "it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship", and that "by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down; when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect".
Right-wing commenters loudly decried the White House's actions on free speech grounds. Some of their rhetoric was overblown (the sentiment behind the request was understandable, and they did nothing to compel its removal). But, for reasons made clear by the ACLU and EFF, these conservative objections were largely correct.
Note, government "requests" are how China manages the majority of its net censorship.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.
No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.
I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.
As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
Let me ask you this, does the violence negate the original statement?
See you added a causality twist in there with your analogy that's a bit different, I think, than what actually happened.
1. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive.
2. Violence happens.
3. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive. You also condemn the violence.
That's what happened. What you're doing is adding an extra step, that says the violence is justified by the violence. Oh, well, those rapists couldn't help themselves. Oh, well, those protesters couldn't help themselves.
It's neither explicit nor implicit in the embassy statements, neither the initial one nor the subsequent one that any such justification is admitted by the staff. It is in fact possible for the video producer and the violent protesters to both be wrong for different reasons, and it sounds like that's what the second statement is saying. But the violence doesn't get the video off the hook.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The embassy grounds are American territory.
First: While you're talking about the Egyptian embassy, it's worth noting that the site in Libya was a consulate, not an embassy.
There are so few subjects I am uncomfortable being wrong on, and you managed to find one. Though it does say the host country can't enter an embassy and this is also true of consulates without the representing countries permission.
Thanks for correcting that misconception.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.
I see what you did there.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
In addition to releasing his full 2011 taxes, Romney will also be releasing a summary of the past 20 years. The data is supposed to be available here although I haven't managed to get through yet.
It's an odd thing to do; maybe he's trying to show that he can listen to and respond to people's concerns. But I think, particularly because it's just summaries and not the full documents, that it's just going to open him up to further attack on the issue from Democrats. FWIW, here are the topline statistics, courtesy of this blog post quoting from this press release:
quote: In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That's good enough as far as I'm concerned. The specifics of how he got his percentages to where he did are not secrets, many accountants can describe them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not odd at all. He's trying to disprove some of the negatives without opening himself up to any actual scrutiny, because many tax experts have openly said they honestly can't figure out a lot of his tax issues, and that his returns are incredibly dense, complex, and riddled with question marks.
Releasing a summary shows people he actually paid taxes, that was the big point. Now he hopes the issue goes away without people digging through the details.
It's not good enough for me, but I don't expect any more.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, it won't be going away any time soon.
His 2011 returns reveal he paid a 14.1% tax rate. Still lower than most, but higher than expected. And I'm sure he hopes this would shut everyone up.
Except he picked that number by choice. Had he taken the deductions on charitable donations he was permitted, his rate would have been 9%. His campaign came right out and said he overpaid to meet the commitments he made to have a rate over 14%.
The part that I'm sure he's hating is the immediate resurgence of his quote from a January debate:
quote:I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.
And in July he told ABC news that anyone overpaying their taxes wasn't "qualified" to be president.
The news he was hoping for? "Romney releases tax returns, nothing shocking found." The news you'll hear all weekend? "Romney disqualifies himself from the race."
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Campaign statement:
quote:He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. In order to be consistent with that statement, the Romneys limited their deduction of charitable contributions.
I'll be honest, I don't remember his explicit wording. Probably a good idea to check on it....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And yet the 47% who aren't legally required to pay income taxes are freeloaders.
Man, you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make sense of his beliefs regarding taxes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The "unique positions" is that he's behind in the polls.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess it's indicative of how well his campaign has been going that he wants people to be talking about his tax returns again
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Saw this on the Daily Show, dug up a link.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
meh... The "47% who pay no income taxes" still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than Romney.
1) Tithing ain't charitable even though it's tax deductable as a "charitable contribution", nor is supporting Republican political action groups which operate under the guise of being "educational". 2) For a Mormon bishop especially, the 10% tithe is on income before deductions. ie Romney's $4million in "charitable contributions" could easily reflect a real income of $40million before tax loopholes allow him to claim a mere $13million as taxable income. 3) "Paying a half million more than I had to" in taxes while running for President is campaign financing, not "an overpayment to make sure I'm paying my fair share".
[ September 22, 2012, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Aspectre, tithing can be paid on gross or net. The exact details of what you pay is between you and God. Some bishops may say it should be pre tax but they are wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've seen video of Obama's appearance at the Univision town hall, and to call his reception there frosty would an understatement. It was an intense hour that ground Obama down with relentlessly aggressive questions. I liked it.
Romney on the other hand forced Univision to allow him to bus in his own supporters from around the state, who proceeded to break the rules and cheer and boo throughout the forum, constantly interrupting the hosts, who were a little pissy about that. Romney apparently threw a hissy fit back stage over a couple of issues with the forum, after threatening to cancel if he couldn't have his own supporters there.
I think it was a pretty smart move on his part, since the contrast looks bad for Obama. The media is talking more about Romney's bad tan than they are the story behind the town hall.
But I also think this is yet more evidence that he'll do poorly at the debates next month. He simply refuses to tackle a world outside the bubble his handlers have created for him.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Romney said earlier his 47% comments can't be used against him, because they were said by him, and not his campaign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What's his delusional rationale behind that statement?
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Scott Pelley: Well-- as you know, a lot of people were concerned about the video of the fundraiser in which you talked about the 47 percent of the American people who don't pay taxes. Peggy Noonan, a very well-known conservative columnist, said that it was an example of this campaign being incompetent. And I wonder if any of that criticism gets through to you and whether you're concerned about it at all, whether--
Mitt Romney: Well, that's not--
Scott Pelley: --the concerns of Republicans--
Mitt Romney: That's not...that's not the campaign. That was me, right? I-- that's not a campaign.
Scott Pelley: You are the campaign--
Mitt Romney: I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job. But not everything I say is elegant. And I want to make it very clear, I want to help 100 percent of the American people.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I think, according that that transcript, he was just defending the people who are working to get him elected. He was asked if the campaign was incompetent, and he said 'That was me, right?'
In other words, he said the campaign was fine, he's the incompetent one. Which is fair. No way did any of his advisers suggest he made that 47% comment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do wonder, often, what sort of candidate Romney would be if we weren't in a period when to get his party's nomination, he wouldn't had to have gotten quite so snug and comfortable (or try to) with a party that is substantially more strident, more angry, more conservative, and more disdainful of compromise than has been the case, as my understanding goes, in American politics for quite some time. A guest on either Talk of the Nation or tell me more said it well, I think. Paraphrasing, he pointed out that Romney has a sincerity problem because he's not speaking his native language.
I think there's a case to be made for a claim that Romney's stances can be...fluid...when necessary, but I do wonder how he would look if the water hadn't had to flow quite so far uphill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't have much sympathy.
If you want to be president so much that you're ready to compromise your core principles, maybe you shouldn't be president.
[ September 23, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I didn't mean I was particularly sympathetic. Just curious, with the suspicion that if politics hadn't necessitated the choice between Massachusetts Romney and GOP primary Romney, I would like him better, but wouldn't have an idea just how far right he would go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he was Massachusetts Romney, he'd probably be ahead in the polls. This is the perfect election for a moderate Republican to knock off a sitting conservative Democrat.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If he was Massachusetts Romney, he'd probably be ahead in the polls. This is the perfect election for a moderate Republican to knock off a sitting conservative Democrat.
Great point. Indeed, for a long time now (since the beginning of the Bush [2] years) I've suspected my general shift to Democrat support has been mainly due to the Republican "machine" and not so much the specific Republican candidates or greater empathy toward the Democrats.
McCain was a great example. Way back in the 2000 election, I was deciding what to register as. I'd characterize myself as a moderate, leaning Democratic. But, in the primaries that year, I thought McCain was a great choice. Had he been the RNC candidate that year, I very easily could see myself have registered Republican and voted for him.
By the time he got the nomination in 2008, the Republican party line had become so distasteful to me I wound up not just voting for Obama, but even volunteered for his campaign.
No such volunteering this year - I'm not happy with how he hasn't made any headway (or seems to even have any interest in) repealing much of the Patriot Act or how he hasn't held Wall Street accountable in any real way for the crash.
But there's no way I foresee voting for the Republican nominee - no matter who they are - while they pander to a base that becomes more and more hardline and foreign to the Republican party I grew up in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remain on pins and needles to see where the GOP goes if Romney loses. Do they go into the wilderness and come out more moderate? Or do they double down on the hard right?
I think that depends on two things: 1. How successful Romney is in placing blame if he loses. If the party decides he lost because he wasn't conservative enough, the chances of them nominating a moderate are slim. If he convinces them he went all in in their ideology, with Ryan and his ridiculous campaign posturing, maybe they'll try for a real moderate next time.
2. How successful Obama is in a second term. If they stonewall him for four more years, I don't know what happens, but surely the country suffers. Clearly it will have failed as an electoral strategy, so they might try playing nice a little more so they can't get pegged as a do-nothing Congress. It's hard to say, but there are already rumblings that if Obama wins, the GOP will cave on taxes to save defense spending.
It's interesting, Dems came up with Obama and/or Clinton after Kerry lost. This is a similar election in many ways. If Romney loses, do they go for the GOP version of Obama?
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I think, according that that transcript, he was just defending the people who are working to get him elected. He was asked if the campaign was incompetent, and he said 'That was me, right?'
In other words, he said the campaign was fine, he's the incompetent one. Which is fair. No way did any of his advisers suggest he made that 47% comment.
I see what he's doing. Although it falls flat. Regardless of how hard his campaign works, if they have a candidate that sucks, their campaign sucks. It's not necessarily due to their incompetence obviously, but HE is the campaign. The way he said it made it sound like he wasn't.
The fact is you're electing the Candidate, even if that means they bring some of their campaign people on with them as advisers, the face of the Country and their party as well, will be Romney.
Also campaign staffers who stay on the ship as it's Captain is trying to sink it don't get that much sympathy from me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney's 60 minutes stint is just brutal to watch.
Is “fair to a guy who makes $50k” to pay “a higher rate than you?” Romney: “yeah.. It’s the right way to encourage economic growth.”
Doh, I get it. If I make more money, why I'll pay less in taxes. This means I'll have more money. Why didn't I think of that. Well forget about screwing off in the unemployment line. I'm going to work extra hard now so I can pay less in taxes.
Listen Governor Romney and the rest of the motivationalists out there. We haven't all become rich because we lack the motivation to do it. We are motivated every time we have to say no to our kids, every time we eat filler food instead of tasty food, every time we see a commercial that says "Buy" and we have to say "No". We don't lack the motivation.
We lack the luck, the connections, the deviousness, or the opportunities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we just stop indulging the poor, they will stop being poor. This is how poverty was eradicated before there were government programs to coddle the poor. There were no poor people in the US before FDR.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I'm very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can't go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It's not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tiny Tim was a slacker.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To be fair Scrooge went too far in the other direction, and started paying for Tiny Tim's visits to the emergency room. Which of course was not free in those primitive days.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't really understand how that's too far in the other direction.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: On Monday, Mitt Romney offered a remedy to the problem that caused his wife’s airplane to land prematurely last week: Allow passengers to roll down the airplane windows.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I don't really understand how that's too far in the other direction.
He's dolling out money to the poor!
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's 60 minutes stint is just brutal to watch.
Is “fair to a guy who makes $50k” to pay “a higher rate than you?” Romney: “yeah.. It’s the right way to encourage economic growth.”
Well that's a nice snip and paste that just happens to omit a good chunk of the conversation and what he actually said. If you listen to the actual interview, he explains that the reason the capital gains rate is lower than regular income is because the investment itself has already been paid for with money taxed at full boat, often as high as 35%.
I happen to agree with not being taxed on investments as if they were my regular paycheck. I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income. Unless the government was also willing to cover losses for me, then we might be able to strike a deal of some sort.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income.
Really? What would you do with the money otherwise? I don't see how having gains subject to taxes would disuade a person from seeking gains. It's like saying if my salary is going to be taxed I just won't work.
quote:Unless the government was also willing to cover losses for me, then we might be able to strike a deal of some sort.
You can deduct losses, so I guess we're all set.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Now you're getting it. There is definitely a point at which I won't put my money to work through certain vehicles if the tax on gains is punitive when factored with the inherent risk. I'd probably invest in real estate. Until they decide to get rid of the 1031 exchange, in which case I'd probably stuff any extra duckets I had in my mattress.
You can deduct losses against gains, which is great provided you have gains to deduct against.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I certainly wouldn't be interested in investing in stocks, mutuals, etc. if it were taxed like regular income.
Really? What would you do with the money otherwise? I don't see how having gains subject to taxes would disuade a person from seeking gains. It's like saying if my salary is going to be taxed I just won't work.
It happens.
Raising taxes on capital gains or interest income has a similar effect to simply outright reducing your capital gains or reducing interest rates. Investing is encouraged when your invested money gains enough value via investing so that the present value of your investment outweighs the value that you have now. (e.g. "the happiness created by me spending my greater amount of money in twenty years outweighs the happiness that I'll get by spending it now") However, if returns are reduced that becomes less likely.
Now, in a way, that's actually government policy. For example, the lowering of interest rates is *supposed* to encourage spending rather than saving. But it cannot be ignored that this kind of policy discourages people from saving and becoming self-sufficient during their own retirements.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
Yup. The question "why would taking more of your [investment] gains disuade you from seeking gains?" is a bit bizarre.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd seriously like to see someone at Romney's level of wealth try to spend his wealth now, instead of investing it.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'd seriously like to see someone at Romney's level of wealth try to spend his wealth now, instead of investing it.
Definitely not likely, but the ramifications of taxing the snot out of capital gains would affect a heck of lot more small fry than whales.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why do you think so? If you look at capital gains, the "whales" are rather overwhelmingly represented.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Overwhelmingly represented in in terms of absolute amount of wealth affected maybe. In terms of utility of their wealth lost, it could very well be the middle class. Losing 5% of your gains when you've scratched together $20,000 is a lot more damaging then losing 5% of your gains if you own tens of millions. Additionally, under American tax rules, Romney could probably weasel out of being affected by the change while the middle class has no such option.
You really need a sustained and targeted campaign if the goal is to reduce the wealth of "whales." A one-off patch like simply changing capital gains taxes would simply create lots of collateral damage without affecting your real target.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I have no idea how the data on capital gains is distributed across those who invest in general. I'm speaking only experientially.
I'm in an exponentially (to put it mildly) different category than Romney, but this is a matter that affects my decisions, and those of many I know, greatly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it's still the best way out there to make a buck, I suspect the process of seeking gains will still be pursued, though of course any efforts to cut into that will have an impact.
What I'm past sick of is proponents-particularly the very wealthy, or the politicians they fund-behaving as though opposition to more of a tax is some sort of public good stance. That may very well be one of the reasons such people oppose such efforts, but let's not forget that the other reason is a great big helping of self interest. Which is fine, actually, I've no beef with people attempting to lower their own tax rate through the legislative process. But don't try and sell me that you're my buddy and it's best this way for everyone because trickle down etc. etc. That's an argumen that has to actually be made, not simply presented as credible on its own. Not when doing so is in the presenter's very real, very obvious self-interest.
And especially don't try and sell me that stuff when you're also then going on to sneer at your opponent's supporters who will continue to support him just because it's in their financial interest to do so. Try not to treat me like an idiot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think it would be exceedingly difficult to for me to be affected by American capital gains tax rates.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
There's no reason the axe has to fall so heavily on the middle class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because redistribution, that's why!
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
I had a similar thought when everyone got up in arms about the raising taxes on those who make $250K/year thing a while ago. How about instead of making it black and white, for or against, some compromise gets made where it goes into affect for $500K or $1MM/year?
Nope. Had to be good vs. evil. Battle to the death.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why can't we just omit people who make less than say $100,000 a year, and make the rate progressive after that?
That would be fine.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Warren Buffet talked about how he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary and he points out how unfair this is, and it's easy, because it's RIDICULOUSLY UNFAIR. And people who want to keep things taxed like this have to weasel around this issue.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Everyone does know that before the Bush tax cuts "Capital Gains" were taxed like Income, and people still invested heavily, right? Did I miss something where someone said this and just went another direction in the conversation?
There's no reason that we should cap the tax on capital gains at 10 and 15%.
Now, moral arguments about 'fairness' are totally valid (although I think many people putting forward a moral argument for increased tax rates on the wealthy are being inconsistent on whether enforcing particular groups' moral positions is the appropriate purview of the federal government). But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
<edit>In the interest of accuracy, here is something actually written by Ezra Klein arguing that capital gains tax rates could be increased without the bad things economists worry about happening. His point is primarily that while in theory tax rates on investment should be kept low, in practice investors (and the economy) don't seem to react to changes in the tax rates the way theory would predict, so the theory is probably deficient. He does twist a couple of facts to make his point (Reagan only raised capital gains taxes after he dropped them rather dramatically), and elides others (like drops in capital gains rates have generally in recent history resulted in increased government revenue) and IMO significantly overinterprets the lack of correlation in the chart of tax rates and GDP growth, but he does provide essentially a behavioralist defense of increased tax rates: people don't invest rationally, so planning our tax code as if they do won't get the result you think it should.</edit>
[ September 25, 2012, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
*blink* I think that's definitely overstating the "consensus." In fact, I think the actual consensus is that capital gains rates need to be considerably higher.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF: Well that's a nice snip and paste that just happens to omit a good chunk of the conversation and what he actually said.
Ok, let's look at the whole of what he said, according to the article:
quote: “Now you made, on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year,” Pelley said. “And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?”
“It is a low rate,” Romney said. “And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.”
When pressed on whether or not he believes that rate is fair, Romney said he thought it was the “right way to encourage economic growth — to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.”
So, basically the same thing. He's totally for a person who makes $50k a year paying a much higher effective tax rate than him, because the system as it is (plus his mathematically impossible tax plan, no doubt) is the right way to encourage economic growth.
There is a reason why this is so concerning. It is a level beyond supply side. We can call it 'supply side II' and look at what wealth divides would be under the Romney ideal.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: But from what I can tell the scientific consensus is that raising capital gains tax rates on any group is bad policy.
*blink* I think that's definitely overstating the "consensus." In fact, I think the actual consensus is that capital gains rates need to be considerably higher.
Population consensus may be (probably is) that capital gains rates should increase. But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
The consensus among those who have no capital gains is to raise CG taxes, of that I'm certain. I think the question is whether doing so would have a net negative impact on investment in general and hurt everyone. I'm not qualified to answer that one. I know it would change what I do with my money, and my gut says I'm not an outlier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
No, I don't think so. The consensus among monetarists seems to line up that way, but monetarists are stupid and wrong. I think we might also be confusing financiers with economists, as we saw with the whole "600+ economists for Romney" bit -- where around half the "economists" listed were actually professors of finance. I have no doubt that a consensus among people whose lives revolve around ensuring a high debt-to-asset ratio in the general population is that capital gains taxes are bad. *grin*
------
quote:I know it would change what I do with my money...
Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
More to the point: if capital gains were your primary source of income, would they cease to be your primary source of income if they were taxed more highly?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But the scientific consensus (in this case, economists) seems to be that increasing capital gains rates is a bad idea.
No, I don't think so. The consensus among monetarists seems to line up that way, but monetarists are stupid and wrong.
quote:[T]his is definitely an issue where the conservative position is in line with what most experts think is the right course, and Democrats are outside the mainstream...It's a pretty solid theory, it's in most of the textbooks I've seen, and it shapes public policy in basically every country I'm familiar with.
I'm not that up on macroeconomics, but based on my passing familiarity with the subject I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income. If such a position exists, I'm not alone in seeing it as outside the mainstream scientific consensus on the issue.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
More to the point: if capital gains were your primary source of income, would they cease to be your primary source of income if they were taxed more highly? [/QB]
I'd probably look much closer at real estate or maybe bonds.
But I was speaking more from the perspective of active/future investment decisions vs existing. That said, can you imagine the sell-off if/when it's announced that the rate is going up by 20% as of X date?
To your point, if I actually had cap gains as my primary source of income already, I probably wouldn't/couldn't do much about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income...
Is that the yardstick? I thought we were arguing over whether it was a consensus that taxing capital gains was bad, and higher capital gains taxes were themselves always also bad.
-----------
quote:But I was speaking more from the perspective of active/future investment decisions vs existing. That said, can you imagine the sell-off if/when it's announced that the rate is going up by 20% as of X date?
Where, again, is that money going to go? We're talking about people who use capital -- stocks, etc. -- as an alternative to savings accounts, people whose net worth is overwhelmingly in capital. Are they going to sell all their stock and buy real estate, thus saving the real estate market? Are they going to buy gold, because they're stupid? Are they going to put it in a money market? I don't think so.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
-----------
[QUOTE]... We're talking about people who use capital -- stocks, etc. -- as an alternative to savings accounts, people whose net worth is overwhelmingly in capital. [/QB]
We are? I certainly don't fall in that category, unless you're defining capital differently than I do. And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
I realize its not black and white but I'm telling you what my thought process would be, not my speculation about the broader market. Again, I don't think I'm an unusual example, but maybe I am and most others would just shrug and stay in no matter what.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Why not just apply the rule to future investments, if a sell-off is the primary concern?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Why not just apply the rule to future investments, if a sell-off is the primary concern?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Back when the US taxed it at 90% during WWII did rich people stop saving money?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Really? What would you change, Scott, if you continued to deduct losses and paid an extra 10% on your gains? Where would you put your money?
If I were Scott, I'd probably just move to Canada, comparing tax rates under that proposal, I think the Canadian tax rates on capital gains would be lower at every income level.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Are they going to sell all their stock and buy real estate, thus saving the real estate market? Are they going to buy gold, because they're stupid? Are they going to put it in a money market? I don't think so.
In Canada, it would probably first go to dividend stocks that produce tax-advantaged dividend income instead of capital gains. So that would be a big shift from stocks that emphasize capital gains (technology companies) to financial stocks (banks and the like).
If that was blocked, it would probably go into real estate. But I would say that would be a really bad idea since it would work against the government's efforts to rein in what looks like a housing bubble.
The government could of course remove the capital gains exemption on primary housing to fight even that ...
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Because companies use shareholder investments to grow their businesses, hire more people etc. When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things. Like design proprietary connector cables shipped straight from China. Ok, maybe not the greatest example.
If I do decide to get out of stocks, you could argue that my capital has merely shifted and there are ancillary benefits (ie growth, hiring) with that shift. But I don't think it would be a great trend, given how tightly economy is tied to equity markets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that the tight coupling of our economy to the equity markets is one of the great weaknesses and problems with our economy, and think a large movement away from stock "investment" as another form of savings would be enormously beneficial.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not that up on macroeconomics, but based on my passing familiarity with the subject I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income. If such a position exists, I'm not alone in seeing it as outside the mainstream scientific consensus on the issue.
A couple of problems with this. First, economics is not scientific. I'm not sure why you would describe it that way.
Second, what you are saying isn't true. No one has been able to demonstrate that a higher capital gains rate or one equal to the income rate, has a negative effect on economic growth.
And that's leaving aside the situation we find ourselves in and the scope of the proposals. We are seeing a massive wealth disparity between the working class and the investing class. This is a very bad thing. There are a variety of proposals out there, none of which rely on a straight raise of the capital gains rate, but rather are targeted at those with high incomes and often those who high incomes come solely or mostly through investment. We're not sure what will happen then, just as we're not sure if any negatives will be worse than allowing the continued widening of wealth in the classes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Well, that's how it works some of the time, if new new shares were issued and you purchased them for example.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If apple sells you stock that it owns directly, then that is exactly what is going on. Sometimes they also use their cash to buy their own stock when the price is low.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Well, that's how it works some of the time, if new new shares were issued and you purchased them for example.
Yes, it sometimes happens, when companies hold a secondary offering. Apple is not however holding a secondary offering. The $675 share purchase would be like the overwhelming majority of transactions where the money doesn't go to the company. But it seemed like the Scott was saying that it would. So I asked him to explain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If apple sells you stock that it owns directly, then that is exactly what is going on. Sometimes they also use their cash to buy their own stock when the price is low.
I'm not sure what you mean by that first part, but it looks like it might be based on an incorrect assumption. A company can't sell its own stock on the open market without an official public offering.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And yeah, if I've had a position in a stock that's done well and I know my return will go down by a bunch in 6 months, I'd strongly consider selling and getting the money off the table and into real estate or municipal bonds.
And can you explain why you think this would be bad for the economy?
Because companies use shareholder investments to grow their businesses, hire more people etc. When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things. Like design proprietary connector cables shipped straight from China. Ok, maybe not the greatest example.
If I do decide to get out of stocks, you could argue that my capital has merely shifted and there are ancillary benefits (ie growth, hiring) with that shift. But I don't think it would be a great trend, given how tightly economy is tied to equity markets.
Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Your first sentence is false. I work for a company that just IPO'd and we now have a bunch of extra money. We are opening new offices and hiring a bunch of people as a result.
We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:When you buy that $675 share of Apple, they use the money to do cool things.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that whenever you buy stock, the company gets that money, which is obviously not how it works. Could you explain?
Yeah you're right, technically it's only newly issued stock and primary market tx's that go directly to the company and the secondary market stock is traded between shareholders.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would argue that the tight coupling of our economy to the equity markets is one of the great weaknesses and problems with our economy, and think a large movement away from stock "investment" as another form of savings would be enormously beneficial.
Fair enough.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money. They hire people and do cool things because their is a demand for those cool things which requires hiring more people. For there to be a demand, people have to have money to spend.
Your first sentence is false. I work for a company that just IPO'd and we now have a bunch of extra money. We are opening new offices and hiring a bunch of people as a result.
We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
I don't think you understood boots's point. Your company isn't expanding because they have more money. The money is allowing them to expand, but they are doing it because they believe that there will be demand for the additional production that this expansion enables. If they didn't believe this, expansion would be crazy.
In a rational economic system, additional capital enables expansion. It doesn't drive it. That's done by expected unmet demand (as well as strategic concerns).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We're not expanding because existing demand requires it, we're expanding ahead of the curve because we're sitting on a bunch of shareholder cash and we need sales people to help generate additional demand and revenue.
I don't think you're really contradicting kate here. IPOs are a special case and represent a small fraction of trades. Purchasing shares of Walmart or Apple does not lead to much hiring.
Posted by ScottF (Member # 9356) on :
I might be parsing or reading into it too literally - maybe I'm not contradicting her. We believed in increased opportunity before we had the capital infusion, but could not expand based purely on that optimism. Because we now have extra money, we are growing and hiring.
If the intention was "Companies don't hire people and grow their companies because they have extra money unless there is also anticipated opportunity or demand" then we're definitely in sync. Of course opportunity is not the same as demand.
MattP - agreed that IPOs are outliers with regards to how capital works for companies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If companies grew and hired because they had extra cash laying around then we simply wouldn't have an unemployment problem.
Cry about taxes and the like as you wish, but corporate America is sitting on a multi-billion dollar nest egg, and I've read dozens of articles in the last year and interviews with CEOs where they say the number one reason they aren't spending that money is because there's a lack of demand. You can't create more product to sell when no one wants to buy the product you already have.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If companies grew and hired because they had extra cash laying around then we simply wouldn't have an unemployment problem.
Cry about taxes and the like as you wish, but corporate America is sitting on a multi-billion dollar nest egg, and I've read dozens of articles in the last year and interviews with CEOs where they say the number one reason they aren't spending that money is because there's a lack of demand. You can't create more product to sell when no one wants to buy the product you already have.
A good example of this would be Apple. They're not going out and hiring tons and tons of 'spare' people they don't need, they even have the demand, but they don't need the employees. Sitting on 90 billion in cash, more than legally allowed, they had to come up with a plan to spend it, and give some back in dividends.
They had no reason to go out and hire more people just because they could.
A friend of mine owns a restaurant, he keeps wondering why anyone thinks even he (An ACTUAL small business) would hire another employee just because his taxes went down. He doesn't have a need for them, or work for them to do. If he needs someone, he will hire them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why with the marginal savings from everybody's taxes being cut, we'll all go out to restaurants now and he'll need additional locations!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why with the marginal savings from everybody's taxes being cut, we'll all go out to restaurants now and he'll need additional locations!
See that's true. But it is only true for those people for whom going to restaurants would be an unaffordable luxury without the tax cuts.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I'm under the impression that when rich people get more money, they usually don't spend it right away, as they already had enough money for whatever they wanted to buy.
But when poor people, or lower middle-class people get more money, they spend it right away. Because there is so much they always wanted, but couldn't afford. When they can finally afford it, they buy it right away.
The money goes immediately into circulation. It goes into products and services. People buy new mobiles and furniture, they go to restaurants and amusement parks, they get someone to fix the plumbing, or to repair the paint in the car.
All the stuff that they quite didn't have enough money for.
This means there is much greater demand in the economy - for *almost everything*. Excluding stuff like expensive luxury items. And this means more jobs at almost every level. And more jobs means again more poor and lower middle-class people with more money to spend. Which means again greater demand.
If a rich person gets a few extra millions due to tax cuts, I don't think he's likely to go to more restaurants and amusement parks. He already had the best mobile, and the best furniture. His plumbing doesn't need fixing, and neither does his car.
Maybe he buys a new yacht, once he has saved a few million more. Then again, he might be well satisfied with his current yacht. So the money goes to savings, stocks, bonds, etc.
This all sounds rather logical to me. Maybe It's fundamentally flawed, but I've seen many noted economists argue more or less the same principle.
Ironically, the stock-owning, company-owning, product & service-providing rich person is probably going to make more money because of the larger spending of the poor and the lower middle-class, than he could have ever done with tax cuts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I'm trying to remember the quote, either Twain or Will Rogers--that said something along the lines that "If you give more money to the rich, they will hang on to it in all the ways they have practiced for centuries. If you give more money to the poor, the rich will have it by nightfall. That's how they got rich in the first place."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So apparently on Fox News Gaddaffi was described as a "key US ally".
Interesting.
@Tuukka: Along those lines I hear that a better proposal would've been instead of bailing out the banks, simply wipe out all US private debt.
Which would crush the banks.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
This headline on CNN this morning made me legitimately laugh out loud:
I'm sure the wording is not what the Romney campaign intended, but it's kinda hilarious regardless.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seriously! What the heck? If they already expect to lose the first debate why would I even tune in to see him participate?
I guess there's the curiosity of seeing just what it's like for Mitt Romney to do something he expects to lose at.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
General hilarity for this election was kind of down after the conclusion of the clownshow republican primary but that clip sees us kind of catching back up into stride!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The best part is after he fails to rile them up, when he's like "There we go!" as if the thing he'd wanted to have happen actually happened.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
Regardless, this is hardly news. Romney's folks have been spinning this line for weeks, and I'm sure even the blunt headline doesn't bother them considerably, though they would have preferred something different. The point is to lower expectations so that when he loses, or better, if he actually holds his own, then doing okay becomes at worst nothing bad, and at best, a victory. It's all about managing the press more than anything.
I don't think it means he won't try hard or that he'll phone it in, not any more than he did as his primary debates. In fact, I expect he'll try his hardest because anything that can be spun as a great performance suddenly becomes an upset victory against Obama, the master debater.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ron Lambert is writing a correction to the internal memo though, we need to wait until we have all the facts
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
I thought they were talking about his experience from the 2008 campaign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
(Post removed by JanitorBlade. Offensive content.)
[ September 28, 2012, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [link removed]
And?
Setting aside the fact that plenty of standard men's undershirts have a very similar silhouette (my son has some), so what? It's not like Romney has hidden the fact that he is a practicing Mormon.
[ September 28, 2012, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: I don't exactly get what your post is going for but Mormon garments are a very sacred thing to them. As the owner of this site is LDS I am sure he would not be comfortable with that link. Please remove it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: I imagine you simply haven't had enough time to see my request, but I felt I needed to remove the link after some time had passed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Obama has been involved in eight one on one political debates? How are they coming up with that number?
I thought they were talking about his experience from the 2008 campaign.
Well sure, but he only had three debates with McCain. Where are the other five coming from? Or are they counting his one on one debates with Clinton?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
While a reasonable guess, it does not make sense in the orginal context. In the press release they said "This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first."
The memo goes on to talk about debates against both McCain and Clinton. Including Obama's primary debates with Clinton while ignoring all the primary debates Mitt participated in seems a bit dishonest to me. Romney participated in more than 20 debates during the primary season. Sure, none of them were actually one-on-one debates but I'm not sure why that distinction really matters. They are trying to paint Romney as a complete novice to political debates which at this point is simply untrue.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: This headline on CNN this morning made me legitimately laugh out loud:
I'm sure the wording is not what the Romney campaign intended, but it's kinda hilarious regardless.
Both sides are working hard to raise debate expectations of their opponents. This is pretty standard stuff. From the article, "Managing debate expectations is a well-worn presidential campaign tradition — and a painfully obvious tactic. But both sides have been ratcheting up the rhetoric to new heights, trying to make the other guy look 10 feet tall in hopes of getting reporters to spin the debate in their favor Wednesday if their candidate does better than expected."
No, Romney did not fail to start a "Romney-Ryan" chant. MSNBC, and first-hand accounts from the crowd, say that the crowd was chanting "Romney" (contrary to the 'Joe & Friends' graphic). When Romney tried to insert "Ryan" the crowd noise died down. It seems evident that the crowd just assumed he was leading into his stump speech and gave up the cheer when he started talking. Furthermore...seriously? This is a big deal? I know the narrative du jour is that Romney is failing to generate excitement (and there's truth to that; if you compare polls, Democrats' excitement increased much more post-convention than Republicans, which is the main reason polls currently favor Obama), but the fact that people really seem to resonate with clips of Romney's occasional stump awkwardness (remember "America the Beautiful"?) seems, to me, petty and a bit silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not 8 debates, but the '08 debates?
That was how I took Jonathon's statement, anyway, I haven't gone back to the links to see if that makes sense of the original quote.
Romney's press statement said Obama participated in 8 debates.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj? It seems to me as much if not more due to various statements Romney himself has made, or been shown to have made (apologies, embassy attack, 47%, Chinese factories, etc.). We'll see to what extent the Obama campaign can keep that negative momentum going.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Furthermore...seriously? This is a big deal?
It's funny. I almost feel sorry for scarborough.
almost. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
I don't much see it. Maybe if I squint, I can see a leveling off prior to 47%, but I think a simpler explanation is that the conventions changed something, possibly permanently, in the race and we're seeing the persistent effects of that. That said, there's no real way to disentangle any of these effects; Andrew Gelman and John Sides (both of whom I view as top notch quantitative political scientists) have estimated the impact of Romney's 47% comments at about 1%, but to some degree it's simply an unanswerable question about what it is that has increased Democratic enthusiasm.
What I think has been established (although I could be wrong about this, and if someone shows me contrary evidence I'll retract) is that the movement in the polls hasn't been due to 'conversion' in the sense that people who previously were leaning toward Romney are now leaning toward Obama. Instead, it's due to an increase in the number of Democrats or Democratic leaners who'd always favored Obama, but who now say they are definitely voting in November. In other words, the consensus likely voter model for the 2012 election has shifted from looking like 2010 to something more like 2008.
<edit>The Pollster estimate shows a more pronounced flattening out post-convention, followed by about a 1% movement post "47%". At least for the moment; I've found that their poll fusion algorithm has a frustrating lack of temporal consistency.</edit>
[ September 29, 2012, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
What happened with Romney and Chinese factories? Must have missed that.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I know three people who, as a direct result of Romney's 47% statements, are voting for third party candidates. I think there's definitely been fallout for him, taking form mostly as people splitting the vote.
[edited to add] They were solid Romney supporters beforehand. I forgot to mention that. Also, I'm not entirely sure of this post's relevance to the conversation. So, I'm going to leave it, and back quietly away, and hope that if I accidentally derailed something, people will just ignore me. XD
[edited again to add] I'm never posting drunk again. I had to delete another post because I quoted instead of edited. Lesson learned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When you're drunk you post political commentary?
I don't think you're doing it right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He doesn't have a drinking problem. He gets drunk no problem.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Barack Obama wants you to know that he’s a really not so great as a debater.
As part of his week-long effort to lower expectations ahead of Wednesday’s first Obama-Romney debate in Denver – an obligatory ritual even the campaigns find tiresome – the president informed a crowd of 11,200 here Sunday night not to expect too much.
“Governor Romney is a good debater. I’m just okay,” said Obama, who is not known for his humility in competitive activities ranging from golf to cards to elections.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I wonder how much of that is from Palin holding her own against Biden being considered a big victory because everyone thought she'd be crushed.
I'm not really sure why else they'd be playing this game.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You left out the most important piece of the article!
quote:Obama will spend the next two days in seclusion at a lakefront hotel in nearby Henderson, Nev., prepping for the showdown with advisers David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Ron Klain, along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is playing Romney in mock-ups.
I find that irrationally hilarious. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Heh, I wonder if they gave him briefing/training notes with tips on how to be more like Mitt Romney. That would make for amusing reading.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not surprising. Romney is trying to lower expectations to make it so the act of breathing correctly is considered a victory and Obama is trying to keep them on the same level.
This is all inside baseball. It's all about controlling the press so they'll call a certain kind of performance a stunning upset or a smashing victory or stunning defeat. It all depends on the perception of victory going on. None of this matters for the purposes of actual people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I wonder how much of that is from Palin holding her own against Biden being considered a big victory because everyone thought she'd be crushed.
I'm not really sure why else they'd be playing this game.
Well, to be fair, as Lyrhawn points out, expectations were kept dismally low. And in fact, at least according to multiple (sometimes unsourced) accounts of the preparations for the event, Palin had simply had a list prepared of probable topics and memorized her answers- then all she had to do was some very simple interplay where she appeared to be considering Biden's points and reacting to them. It was clear, from where I sat, that everything she said during that debate had been scripted.
Which process isn't really that different from the way that Obama will prepare, except that Obama is actually capable of responding to some of the things that Romney will say in an intelligent way. You notice, if I recall correctly, Palin never actually directly addressed anything that Biden said during the debate with any degree of critical thought. It was less a debate then the recitation of pre-prepared comments.
In a way the really horrifying part of that whole fiasco was how easy it was for Palin to fake the whole thing. And how willing, in the end, the advisors were to let her do it. That they arrived at such a decision speaks to how deeply unprepared they were for the whole campaign.
It was also a losing battle for Biden from the beginning. He's an expert in foreign policy, and it was ridiculous that he would even have to debate someone who appeared to have a high school level understanding of geo-politics (generously). He was going to look like a bully or a cad, and if he didn't, he would appear to be condescending.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, the Palin-Biden debate was less a debate and more a joint press conference.
Most debates usually hew more toward that format than an actual, you know, debate. But I thought, despite received criticism, that 2008 was actually a small step in the right direction.
Moderators were allowed to push past the canned 90 responses and 60 second rebuttals to a free wheeling discussion of the issue where they could ask directed questions to bring up salient points and force the candidates into confronting certain issues. Sometimes the candidates pivoted to their stump speeches, sometimes they answered off the cuff. The town hall debate was probably best of all for getting them to engage each other.
So I have high hopes that this won't be another press conference, but I could be wrong. Romney is given to terse, brief responses wrapped in platitudes and policy statements. Obama tends towards longer professorial answers. We'll see how those styles clash and whether the moderator can wheedle any specifics out of either of them.
I'm just hoping they finally confront each other with the blatant lies they've both been telling about each other.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm almost positive Romney's coaches (not that he listens to them), are trying desperately to hammer out any possibility of him speaking off the cuff in any way. He's so unsubtle about doing this, he even admits that he isn't being direct and won't answer particular questions at all.
Plus, and this is just my personal opinion, Romney's major liability is not knowing or particularly caring what people's problems actually are. It makes him deeply unappealing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I think it might help if he actually cared. I don't go in for a lot of the crap about a lot of Republicans not caring. But Romney? I actually think he doesn't care.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When you're drunk you post political commentary?
I don't think you're doing it right.
This seems sound... But then I consider how much more entertaining both the RNC and the DNC would've been had each of the speakers had six shots of something before-hand. And your argument is lost in the sheer awesome of that hypothetical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A six shots rule is just flat-out being hilariously mean to romney.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
I'm honestly expecting Romney to take on the press, he format, and the moderators - it worked for Newt, and hey, he has nothing else to lose.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it worked for Newt in a setting filled with attendees at a Republican primary debate. I could be mistaken, but I think it's safe to say that what appeals to that group isn't going to fly as well in a general election crowd...nor do I think an impassioned series of statements is going to play to Romney's strengths.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I got a campaign fund request from Romney in the mail last night. His letter says I am one of America's most notable republicans. The man is screwed in November.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we stay subscribed to pretty much every republican mass mailer. It's loads of entertainment. The push poll 'questionnaires' are seriously the funniest thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Debates are tonight. Everyone ready?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's go time!
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Romney really took recent criticism to heart. Here he is spewing all sorts of specific quantitative data in his OPENING REMARKS.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So Gov. Romney isn't going to cut taxes? Or is he?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Initial reactions:
Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator.
Romney is absolutely crushing this thing.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
He might sound better on first impression, but I'm not picking up on any specific ideas. Just vague promises. Obama can dish those out, too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know, I AM hearing a bunch of specifics. But if this is nothing but them directly hitting each other's ideas, Romney has that down pat so far.
Obama's hits are falling flat.
He keeps saying almost the right thing, but not quite. Way too cautious.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jim Lehrer is a terrible moderator.
Agreed, though I'm not sure I agree with you on Romney's performance.
But yeah, bad moderation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wish the President didn't look so pissed off. I can understand it; nonsense is fcrustrating. But is doesn't help.
Where does Gov. Romney think the states are going to get all this money to do the things that he wants to leave to the states?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
If Jim Lehrer can't enforce moderation...he needs to go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
This is the problem with highly popular televised debates. They can flat out deny things to each others' faces and it looks really convincing to people at home.
But how many of those people actually do fact checking later?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
The impression I got was that he was calling Romney out and saying that his campaign didn't match his debate position.
If that was his position, though, he did a really poor job getting it across. What he actually accomplished was sounding like a broken record.
That said, Romney did the same thing, albeit more smoothly, with his deficit neutral point on tax breaks. I'm glad Obama called him out when he talked about deficit neutral and tax breaks for the middle class in the same point. If you're keeping it neutral, the breaks need to come from an increase.
Then Obama rambled on for another minute or so without getting called out by the moderator, but that's another issue.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ramble is the key word.
I feel like this is Clinton's DNC speech all over again.
Clinton said everything clearly and understandably. Obama said all the right things, content wise, but the delivery was disjointed and awkward.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Blaming Congress is a losing issue. It's not fair, but if he'd tried that, Romney would have said "A leader gets it done."
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Overall, I could only describe the debate as lackluster.
None of their arguments were new or inventive in any way. Half the time they just agreed with each other.
But ricree, that's not fair to Romney to say that he is not sincere in his effort to reach across the aisle.
Overall, though, I'm dissappointed.
Maybe Jon Stewart and Bill Reilly's debate will be better. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
It wasn't nearly to this degree four years ago.
I think some of what the CNN commentators is saying is true. Obama didn't expect Romney to come out swinging like that, and he was frustrated and annoyed.
And it came out in his performance.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Exactly. Normally Obama's speech is syncopated, yes, but tonight it was stumbling and awkward. Romney in sharp contrast, was in rare form. He didn't even need his zingers!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But the zingers he did use were pretty sharp.
Also, his jokes were funny. That's new.
I'll say this: I was wrong. Romney didn't get smoked like I thought he would, mostly because Obama was either unwilling or unable to hammer away at the inconsistencies in his plan.
The next debate will be very interesting. Obama needs to bring his A+ game.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I haven't watched it all yet, but I agree. Some of Romney's biggest problems, he substantially addressed on a political level. He didn't come off as distant and unpardonable and unconcerned as he has many times in the campaign-when he mentioned that people were hurting, I actually believed he meant it as he was saying it, which is more than I could usually have said.
I was surprised and disappointed that Obama permitted him so much of the momentum, too. Romney was figuratively leaning forward throughout. Didn't notice much in the way, again, of actual details in Romney's plans and felt Obama did a poor job highlighting just how problematic Romney's governing philosophy of 'set objectives and limits, and address the means of attaining or avoiding them as they come up, not in the campaign' really is. He had a big opportunity there and blew it, I think.
I was wryly amused to note that Romney's closing statement was almost entirely an appeal of doom if Obama, so pick me, but politically I'm not sure it will matter.
I remain contemptuous of the format we permit ourselves, even as I was as usual proud at least of our *attempt* to require our leaders to stand up and account for themselves to each other and to us.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Seems to me--and the take I am hearing from many commentators--Romney was dominant in the debate, showing himself to be everything he needs to be: passionate, knowledgeable, with accurate facts readily on hand, able to respond meaningfully, precisely, and forcefully to every point Obama tried to make, correcting Obama's errors effectively. (For example, when Obama claimed businesses were given incentives to relocate overseas, Romney replied that despite all his years in business, he had no idea what Obama was talking about; what Obama said was not the case. Obama had no reply to that.) Obama was stammering a lot, seemed to be looking to the moderator to bail him out several times, and was clearly on defense; while Romney was on offense all the way. Obama without a teleprompter is not a great debater. Romney is. Obama looked down and around a lot, very seldom meeting Romney's eyes; Romney was constantly looking straight at Obama. It was like Obama was being scolded and lectured, and knew it. FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
It may be that Romney's red tie also made exactly the right psychological statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, Romney is far from a great debater, and was today as well. Obama was further, though.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
Just cut to it already and make your prediction that Romney's going to win, so that you can be wrong again, and we can get on with our lives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Polls in the coming days will have much to say on the prediction, but should Romney and Obama mimic yesterday's performance again in their next debate, and perhaps if (though they usually don't matter) Biden lets loose with some major gaffes, it would certainly be at the least less unlikely.
Romney has worked hard to look bad these past few weeks, but he's far from a goner indeed.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If Ron Lambert steps up and predicts that Romney is going to win that means Obama is winning with at least 300 E.C. votes. Its how it works.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think maybe he's been terrible for the last month on purpose so that even a lame October would look awesome by comparison?
With the way the 24 hour networks work, that just might work.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
So it looks like Mittens' plan of attack is to lie out the ass?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: So it looks like Mittens' plan of attack is to lie out the ass?
Hey it works with anyone he can get to vote for him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Seems to me--and the take I am hearing from many commentators--Romney was dominant in the debate, showing himself to be everything he needs to be: passionate, knowledgeable, with accurate facts readily on hand, able to respond meaningfully, precisely, and forcefully to every point Obama tried to make, correcting Obama's errors effectively. (For example, when Obama claimed businesses were given incentives to relocate overseas, Romney replied that despite all his years in business, he had no idea what Obama was talking about; what Obama said was not the case. Obama had no reply to that.) Obama was stammering a lot, seemed to be looking to the moderator to bail him out several times, and was clearly on defense; while Romney was on offense all the way. Obama without a teleprompter is not a great debater. Romney is. Obama looked down and around a lot, very seldom meeting Romney's eyes; Romney was constantly looking straight at Obama. It was like Obama was being scolded and lectured, and knew it. FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
It may be that Romney's red tie also made exactly the right psychological statement.
Edit: This argument is completely devoid of nuance.
[ October 04, 2012, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tend to agree with them.
But that may not mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. We'll see.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
I'm not disagreeing that Romney won the debate. But you're seeing a slaughter, where I saw (and I suspect most people)saw a much closer contest.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
As someone who coaches and judges competitive debate, Romney won hands down. That being said, this in no way makes me more likely to vote for him.
When I judge a debate, I'm not allowed to bring in my own biases and/or knowledge of the issues in evaluating who won. If a person misrepresents, misleads, or lies about something, it is the responsibility of the opponent to call them out on it. In other words, I'm not allowed to do the work for the debaters.
As an informed voter, I do my homework on what each candidate offers. I refuse to satisfy myself with cheap, predictable punditry or the promises of the candidate/campaign. The Governor's lack of integrity and tact in this debate makes me even less likely to vote for him (if such a thing were possible, I confess).
When only evaluating the debate in isolation, Governor Romney stomped the President. But I don't look at debates in isolation when it comes time to vote. And "winning" a debate means far less to me than how you've done it. Your opponent failing to call out your (to put it kindly) inconsistencies does not mean you weren't inconsistent. It means your opponent let you win.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* The main issue here -- and frankly I am astonished by this, as it had to occur to Obama's people that this was going to be Romney's approach, since it has been the cornerstone of his campaign -- is that Romney shamelessly lied about his stated positions, and Obama had no better way to demonstrate those falsehoods than to whine vaguely about them. That this was not anticipated, and that Obama was not provided with ample material documenting Romney's plan and previous statements of record, surprises me a great deal.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I got two things out of the first hour of the debate.
1. Obama's comment about the classroom in Las Vegas. In a way this should anger democrat voters in my state Maryland, who followed our governor's lead in legalizing gambling because it will solve all of our financial troubles, and all the money would go towards education. I am sure it fell on deaf ears, and had nothing to do with Obama. Sort of. Our governor tweeted some nasty things about Romney, and all I can think about was how his fellow democrat attacked the governor without even knowing it.
2. Romney wants to raise my taxes. He admits it. Lowering tax rates AND deductions/exemptions will raise my family's taxes. As a middle class family of four most of our tax breaks come from our deductions and exemptions. My wife and I total make around 100k, and this past year we only paid about 5.5% to the federal government.
I have always thought that I like democrats in charge of the country, and republicans in charge of my state. This proves it to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: As someone who coaches and judges competitive debate, Romney won hands down. That being said, this in no way makes me more likely to vote for him.
The debates of every election, in a nutshell! (they are not really watched by anyone likely to be swayed by them)
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
tada
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
It's not really a problem in that debate format. If you were having a three way conversation and kept referring to one of the other people as he/she and refused to address them directly then people would raise eyebrows.
There was a debate a few years ago between then Senator Obama and Senator John McCain though,
His using the phrase "that one" to refer to Senator Obama was considered very rude, though I think Senator McCain just got lost in his argument and used the first phrase that came to mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He'll crush him because Romney has either no ideas or terrible ideas.
This is not really much of a hindrance at all in the format of today's debates. both sides have pretty much figured out that the only important thing to do is put on appearances and give out platitudes, answering the question poised to you as superficially as possible while working ultimately only on hitting as many talking-point soundbites and attack points as possible and composing yourself in a way as to avoid even deliberate mistranslation as often as possible.
You don't have to have ideas. You just have to be coached to provide well-spoken platitudes.
tada
In my defense, this only works if Obama lets him get away with it.
And Obama let him get away with everything last night.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Mitt Romney: "Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is innacurate"
A question about language: is it polite to say he when this person is standing right next to me? In my country it's extremely impolite, and this is the President Romney is talking about.
But maybe it's the matter of lack of coniugation...
It's not really a problem in that debate format. If you were having a three way conversation and kept referring to one of the other people as he/she and refused to address them directly then people would raise eyebrows.
There was a debate a few years ago between then Senator Obama and Senator John McCain though,
His using the phrase "that one" to refer to Senator Obama was considered very rude, though I think Senator McCain just got lost in his argument and used the first phrase that came to mind.
It's also worth remembering that Americans tend to reject deference to our leaders as a matter of principle, which often seems alien to people in other countries.
In case it wasn't clear, I'm specifically responding to Syzmon's comment about "this is the president that Romney's talking about."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In my defense, this only works if Obama lets him get away with it.
And Obama let him get away with everything last night.
Well, it "works" whether or not you "let" your opponent get away with anything — what I'm talking about is what the debates have become.
They're meaningless talking-point-spews where both candidates understand how unimportant the debates ultimately are, the leading candidate knows they need only maintain the status quo, try to get out as many of their talking points and avoid creating a gaffe so large that it actually effects the election.
Both candidates recognize that the game requires talking around both your opponent and the moderator as much as you can manage it, and it is easy to bully around the moderator since they are beholden to the structure in a way which effectively castrates them as actual debate moderators.
Since neither candidate provided a substantial gaffe, this event will not impact the election and you can give romney a little trophy for winning the debate (which he did, obama looked like he had been up all last night and just slammed a five hour energy to try to get through the debate), and we all move on and get just a little bit depressed over the fact that news analysts thought that tonight's pablum was "too much specific policy talk for the American people to follow."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
jim lehrer was an exceptionally piss-poor moderator last night though
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What was as important as recitation of facts and correction of the opponent's errors, was indeed overall appearances. Romney just appearing on the same stage with the president made Romney look a lot more plausible as a candidate. Then Romney capitalized on it by being on the offense continually, looking straight at Obama, while Obama could hardly ever meet Romney's eyes.
Romney rebutted every claim put forth by Obama, citing specifics, including various acts and congressional reports that Obama has largely been ignoring. When Obama claimed that businesses were getting tax breaks for outsourcing or relocating to other countries, that opened the way for Romney to remind everyone that unlike Obama (who never so much as managed a lemonade stand), he had 23 years of experience as a successful businessman, and he had no idea what Obama was talking about. The fact is that corporations do not outsource or relocate to other countries so they can get a tax break, they do those things because of the cheaper labor costs in other countries. For Obama not to know this betrayed abysmal ignorance on his part. He was arguing on the basis of campaign ad propaganda, rather than facts.
Obama plain and simple got blown out of the water, clearly outclassed by a superior mind possessing real exprience in business. You would almost have to expect this, since the first debate was on the economy, an area where Romney has the education and the experience to run circles around Obama.
Obama could be nothing but vulnerable, considering the dire state of the nation's economy after nearly four years of his administration.
If I remember right, the next presidential debate will be on foreign policy. Obama should have the benefit of nearly four years of daily briefings from the intelligence services. But how much attention has he paid to them? Has he even read them? The extraordinary failure and collapse of his foreign policy in the Middle East will have to make him vulnerable again, in the next debate with Romney.
But you know, the reason why Obama was so ineffective in the debate was the fact that he has been coddled and protected for the past nearly four years. He hardly ever has a press conference. The mainstream media tends to favor him, and seldom takes him to task for anything. He has surrounded himself with people who only say what he wants to hear. So of course when he meets a serious debate opponent, he gives the impression of being hammered, and looks down most of the time (Dennis Miller suggested that maybe he had a teleprompter on his belt buckle), or to Lehrer hoping the moderator would bail him out.
I just wonder how Obama would fare in any face-to-face talks with people like the leader of Iran, or of Venezuela, or China. We already know that in his previous world tours, what he has wound up doing is apologizing for America.
Romney took exactly the right tone--going after Obama forcefully, with energy and passion and ready detailed facts to cite. He said that Obama was not accurate, but never used the blatant words, "You are a liar," though he certainly could have. He knew it would have been perceived as tacky to speak that rudely to the president. Romney got the point across effectively by saying things like, "As president, you get your own plane and your own house--but you do not get to have your own facts." Another time, when Obama kept repeating his misrepesentation of Romney's tax plan despite Romney correcting him about it twice, Romney said he has five sons, and thus he was familiar with people repeating the same story over and over again, hoping that it would be believed if they said it often enough.
OK, Parkour, since you keep asking for it. I predict Romney will win the election by double digits. If he keeps up his winning performance in the future debates, Obama might be persuaded to vote for him. (Tongue-in-cheek.)
I wonder if Obama will contrive, or try to contrive, some excuse for him not to show up for the remaining two presidential debates. He is such a narcissist, he has to hate being battered so badly as he was in last night's debate, and realistically, what hope can he have of doing any better, when Romney so clearly outclasses him?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I predict Romney will win the election by double digits.
Is this part NOT tongue-in-cheek?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Sam, I am thinking of the 1980 election, where former governor Ronald Reagan entered the debates double-digits behind President Jimmy Carter, and after the debates he had managed to turn things around so that he defeated Carter in the election by double-digits.
Like Carter, Obama has had four years of presiding over a terrible economy. (Carter even invented what he called "the misery index.") Like Reagan, Romney is showing himself to be more "presidential" than the incumbent president. And so far, Romney is prevailing so overwhelmingly in the debating, that even supporters of Obama had to admit that Romney was the clear winner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Answer my question. Is that your sincere prediction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sam, I am thinking of the 1980 election, where former governor Ronald Reagan entered the debates double-digits behind President Jimmy Carter, and after the debates he had managed to turn things around so that he defeated Carter in the election by double-digits.
Like Carter, Obama has had four years of presiding over a terrible economy. (Carter even invented what he called "the misery index.") Like Reagan, Romney is showing himself to be more "presidential" than the incumbent president. And so far, Romney is prevailing so overwhelmingly in the debating, that even supporters of Obama had to admit that Romney was the clear winner.
Sure, but that doesn't mean Obama supporters are going to vote for Romney based on that performance. I think he won the debate, but he didn't win my vote.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Really when I say that both candidates understand how meaningless the debates are, it needs to be importantly underlined: winning the debates means crap-all. I said this last debate. I have tried to remind people of this constantly. The presidential debates are all but completely meaningless, even the ones that we call "the historic debates."
quote:Gallup, for instance, reviewed their polls going back to 1960 and concluded they “reveal few instances in which the debates may have had a substantive impact on election outcomes.” Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, in “The Timeline of Presidential Elections,” looked at a much broader array of polls and concluded that there was “there is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” Political scientist John Sides, summarizing a careful study by James Stimson, writes that there’s “little evidence of [debate] game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000.
When Ron implies in a slippery post-hoc way that Reagan's debate performance resulted in or can be considered a major factori in his turnaround, he's wrong. Not that it is surprising, he's wrong about just about everything else: for instance, Carter was neither ahead of Reagan in the popular vote by double digits (It was actually Carter 45, Reagan 42), nor did Reagan win against Carter by double digits.
I know, Ron Lambert factually incorrect about something, major shocker, news at 11.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What was as important as recitation of facts and correction of the opponent's errors, was indeed overall appearances. Romney just appearing on the same stage with the president made Romney look a lot more plausible as a candidate. Then Romney capitalized on it by being on the offense continually, looking straight at Obama, while Obama could hardly ever meet Romney's eyes.
Romney rebutted every claim put forth by Obama, citing specifics, including various acts and congressional reports that Obama has largely been ignoring. When Obama claimed that businesses were getting tax breaks for outsourcing or relocating to other countries, that opened the way for Romney to remind everyone that unlike Obama (who never so much as managed a lemonade stand), he had 23 years of experience as a successful businessman, and he had no idea what Obama was talking about. The fact is that corporations do not outsource or relocate to other countries so they can get a tax break, they do those things because of the cheaper labor costs in other countries. For Obama not to know this betrayed abysmal ignorance on his part. He was arguing on the basis of campaign ad propaganda, rather than facts.
Obama plain and simple got blown out of the water, clearly outclassed by a superior mind possessing real exprience in business. You would almost have to expect this, since the first debate was on the economy, an area where Romney has the education and the experience to run circles around Obama.
Obama could be nothing but vulnerable, considering the dire state of the nation's economy after nearly four years of his administration.
If I remember right, the next presidential debate will be on foreign policy. Obama should have the benefit of nearly four years of daily briefings from the intelligence services. But how much attention has he paid to them? Has he even read them? The extraordinary failure and collapse of his foreign policy in the Middle East will have to make him vulnerable again, in the next debate with Romney.
But you know, the reason why Obama was so ineffective in the debate was the fact that he has been coddled and protected for the past nearly four years. He hardly ever has a press conference. The mainstream media tends to favor him, and seldom takes him to task for anything. He has surrounded himself with people who only say what he wants to hear. So of course when he meets a serious debate opponent, he gives the impression of being hammered, and looks down most of the time (Dennis Miller suggested that maybe he had a teleprompter on his belt buckle), or to Lehrer hoping the moderator would bail him out.
I just wonder how Obama would fare in any face-to-face talks with people like the leader of Iran, or of Venezuela, or China. We already know that in his previous world tours, what he has wound up doing is apologizing for America.
Romney took exactly the right tone--going after Obama forcefully, with energy and passion and ready detailed facts to cite. He said that Obama was not accurate, but never used the blatant words, "You are a liar," though he certainly could have. He knew it would have been perceived as tacky to speak that rudely to the president. Romney got the point across effectively by saying things like, "As president, you get your own plane and your own house--but you do not get to have your own facts." Another time, when Obama kept repeating his misrepesentation of Romney's tax plan despite Romney correcting him about it twice, Romney said he has five sons, and thus he was familiar with people repeating the same story over and over again, hoping that it would be believed if they said it often enough.
OK, Parkour, since you keep asking for it. I predict Romney will win the election by double digits. If he keeps up his winning performance in the future debates, Obama might be persuaded to vote for him. (Tongue-in-cheek.)
I wonder if Obama will contrive, or try to contrive, some excuse for him not to show up for the remaining two presidential debates. He is such a narcissist, he has to hate being battered so badly as he was in last night's debate, and realistically, what hope can he have of doing any better, when Romney so clearly outclasses him?
Obama has the benefit of being president 4 years as far as foreign policy is concerned, but for running an organization he is still in lemonade stand territory? As if running multiple campaigns and the whole Executive Branch counts for 0 experience?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
BlackBlade, don't you know? Obama hasn't held a real job in his entire life. Four years of being President of the United States hardly gives a person the necessary experience or insight into what it takes to be President of the United States.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The early bit about NPR may have a nasty backlash and ruin Governor Romney's debate win.
Mr. Romney said something along the lines of "I will cut all funding to PBS. I like you Tom. I like Big Bird. But I don't like you enough to borrow money from China to keep you on the air."
Within minutes a twitter feed was created, @firedbigbird
Within 10 minutes it had over 2700 followers, and it grew from there.
It a fun feed to follow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's amazing.
Run on a platform underpinned by a mathematically impossible tax plan full of lies and also lies and ... eh, you sorta get away with it, but oh man the second you threaten the integrity of puppets you watched as a kid oh now that's crossing a line lets go lets do this
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to a CNN poll, 67% of viewers thought Romney won the debate, while only 25% thought Obama won the debate.
I'm not disagreeing that Romney won the debate. But you're seeing a slaughter, where I saw (and I suspect most people)saw a much closer contest.
~something interesting about that poll~
quote:
So, I was looking at the crosstabs on CNN's snap poll of "registered Americans" after the debate claiming Romney won the debate 69-25. They start on page 8:
Notice anything funny? According to the breakout, all the people surveyed are white, 50+, and from the South. Are they being serious with this? I know the media loves a horserace, and I'll admit Obama was less passionate and shouty than Mitt, but it's pretty hard not to ascribe a motive to their selection process.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could be just that CNN is in Atlanta and they used local people?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
A lot of factors are going to be taken into account with this election. No matter what Obama says (within the realm of possibilities, of course) and no matter how well Mittins attacks and wins debates, Obama will still have the minority vote, which has in recent years become the majority. He also has the poor vote, which makes up a large class of people in the US. He literally could go sit in the white house and ignore everything between now and the election and he would still have a very good chance at winning the election.
With all that being said, I think Romney won the debate, hands down. He came out of nowhere with his arguments and I don't think the President was prepared for that. In fact, it seemed like the President was overconfident and, quite possibly, preoccupied with other things (probably with being President, since he still has that job). But who knows?
I thought it was funny there at the end when the two of them huddled up together with their families. I wonder what was said and if there was any spite between them?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
oh, probably not a whole lot. well, maybe. who even knows. I am sure on some level they know it's all what the game is bound to be, but they might just legitimately loathe each other
/edit - hey guess who posted on the wrong account again gdi
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: oh, probably not a whole lot. well, maybe. who even knows. I am sure on some level they know it's all what the game is bound to be, but they might just legitimately loathe each other
/edit - hey guess who posted on the wrong account again gdi
There's medication for that Sam, you need professional help!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, goodness yes, Obama has the minority vote (which is now the majority...ummm, what?) just by default...or something. 'The poor', too, in spite of the fact that Mitt does very well with substantial segments of lower income voters who, you know, agree with him politically. Obama can just coast and have a chance. Romney has to work or something, I guess, goes this peculiar and troubling reasoning.
It's not as though Obama has done more for those voters (or perhaps offended less) that results in that support, rather than some...inborn...traits.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, does it matter to you how much of Romney's forceful, alpha-male posturing has been shown to be inaccurate at best and outright lying at worst?
His $5 trillion tax plan may be revenue-neutral, as he claims. But he also offers no way to make that work without raising taxes or slashing everything from the federal budget but military spending. The math doesn't work. If that's what he plans, fine, admit it and let people vote on it.
In response to Obama's comments about the CBO's conclusions, Romney referenced 6 other studies. Problem was, all but one of those were from Romney backers (2 were just blog posts) and the one was from G.W. Bush's economic advisor who makes it sort of work by assuming a growth effect that's very unlikely to happen.
Romney claimed that Obamacare would ration health care prccedures. Not true. From the beginning it's been known that the board has no legal power to dictate treatment or ration care. It's tasked to find ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending but has no, repeat, no power to limit any individual care or procedure. This was a deliberate callback to Palin's mythical "death panels."
Obama has not doubled the deficit, no matter how many times Romney says he has. The deficit at the start of his term was $1.2 trillion.
Romney said “the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year.” That was their worst-case scenario. Most likely was 3 to 5 million, and in the best case more people, not fewer, would be covered. Romney also said under his plan, people with pre-existing conditions would be covered, and his own campaign has admitted that's not quite true.
"50% of college graduates can't find work." Untrue. 53.6 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 were unemployed or underemployed in 2011, but that doesn't count all college grads (A.A., A.S. trades schools, etc) and it includes those who have a part-time job or a job for which they are underqualified.
Over and over Romney said Obama was slashing Medicare of $716 billion. That's a reduction over 10 years, not the sudden gutting of the program this year as he made it sound, and it's being done to extend Medicare's trust fund another 8 years.
He seemed to support Simpson-Bowles but failed to mention that his running mate was the person who scuttled it.
He said there is no tax break for moving jobs overseas, but under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country and they don't have to pay tax on foreign profits if they don't bring the money back into the country. That's not so much a tax break as a tax loophole, but Democratic efforts to close it have been shot down.
The claim I laughed at was Romney's mention of bipartisanship. The health care plan in Mass. was based despite him, not because of his bipartisan efforts. Dems had to fight against his constant veto efforts to dismantle the bill.
And Obama spent far too much time, in my opinion, in the beginning of his term trying to work with Republicans who openly stated their goal was to bring him down. He used Republican ideas, which somehow magically became socialist in the transition. The GOP filibustered over 360 times since 2007 (link) to keep Dem and Administration plans at a standstill.
Sadly, he's probably right. Romney is more likely to get bipartisan movement, if only because some Dems will grit their teeth and work with the GOP to get something down, whereas the GOP flat out refuses to work with Obama for anything at all.
Obama certainly had his share of fact-stretching and fuzzy math and he's been called on it by the same fact-checkers, but nowhere on Mitt's scale. Romney won the debate -- and he clearly won it -- by being loud, talking over everyone else, and repeating his lies so many times Obama was unable to keep up with them all.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, goodness yes, Obama has the minority vote (which is now the majority...ummm, what?)
A study was done recently on the American populous which stated that the minorities (which are generally assumed to be anyone not Caucasian or of European descent) are no longer minorities if they are pooled together into a single mass of individuals. It's a common idea that has been around for a few years now. The idea here is that if you can rally the minority vote (the Hispanics, African Americans, etc), you can overtake the majority vote. Obama appeals to the minority vote more than Romney does. Yes, there are surely exceptions, but people are generally more likely to pick the guy who can relate to them and who appears to have their best interest in mind. Obama has said time and time again that he is going to look out for the lower class, he's spent a lot of time in his career before Washington working with the poor, and he knows how to talk to them.
Romney is a rich white guy. For some people, that's all they need to know. I know that sounds like an awful thing to say, but it's true. It's the same reason a lot of old-fashioned ignorant racists won't vote for Obama, mostly based off the fact that he's a black man. I know because I am constantly surrounded by both sides and I hear all about it. The African American woman who works with me has told me (when I asked, of course) that she was voting for Obama, not because of his politics (she only knows he's a Democrat), but because "he's black and we have to support him". That's what she told me. On the complete opposite side of that, I've got my step-father, a southern, somewhat ignorant 60 year old white guy who is convinced that Obama can't do a good job, simply because he's a black guy (although he prefers to use the N word when speaking about the man). Both perspectives are insane and ignorant, but they exist, and those are not the only two people that I have met who think like that.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? Another study was brought up a few months ago on CNN news that stated that a Presidential candidate was 80% more likely to get elected if they were already President. That automatically gives Obama leverage. Certainly, it doesn't secure his victory, but it puts him in quite the position, which is probably why he doesn't seem to be sweating it too much. Remember back in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election and nobody thought he would win again because everyone seemed to think he was an idiot? Remember how he won anyway? Better to keep the idiot you know than trust the one you don't. That's politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The notion that we can lump all individual minorities into one big lump and count 'em as their no-longer-minority proportion is...problematic. Or does Obama simultaneously appeal to blacks, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians, Native Americans, so on and so forth just...I'm still not sure why exactly, because he 'speaks effectively' to them or something? Look at just how problematic considering even a few of those groups individually homogenous is, much less all of them together, and perhaps consider thinking twice about the notion that Obama has their vote sewn up by default.
Possibly it involves Romney not really appealing to them on his side, as well as Obama's mysterious appeal. Or should we look at Dubya's performance among Latino voters to quickly dispel this notion?
Now, as for refusing to vote for a rich white guy and refusing to vote for a less rich black guy, they're not in fact the same. While I don't think it's a good thing, refusing to vote for someone simply because they're hugely wealthy isn't quite the same thing as refusing to vote for someone because they're black. In the former case, it involves a (bad, when made on ghat basis alone) decision based on a status one has control over. The other is what they're born with.
Furthermore, it's always strange to me, as well as amusing and frankly a bit offensive, at how quick members of a majority can be to equate the more virulent bigots of their side to members of the minority on the other side voting for the first candidate that is more like them.
Sorry. It's the same. They're not both equally insane or ignorant. One view is explicitly held out of contempt and hatred on racial lines. The other is held to support one's own racial group, the first of their kind so to speak with a shot at the majors. Perhaps if you say 'that's ignorant' there might be some discussion to be had, but there's not when you assume the ONLY reason she supports him is because of the color of his skin. Do you think she doesn't have a belief that he will understand her better, that she can relate to him better, that she feels like she will like his politics better? Or should we talk some more about how that's the same as someone refusing to vote for a n*%#ger?
Your analysis of politics runs contrary to much of what is known about presidential campaigns. Conventional wisdom hardly favors incumbents in time of ongoing recession! You continually speak as though Obama's (current, and not at all major of longstanding) lead is only due to...inertia and unknown but easily guessed at minority vote motives.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: A study was done recently on the American populous which stated that the minorities (which are generally assumed to be anyone not Caucasian or of European descent) are no longer minorities if they are pooled together into a single mass of individuals.
Do you have a source for this? From what I can find, the white non-Hispanic/non-Latino population is 66 percent of the total population, and those numbers apparently come from the census (end of the second paragraph).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seems dubious to me too, the pivot date reported here is 2040.
quote:But a recent slowdown in the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations is shifting notions on when the tipping point in U.S. diversity will come — the time when non-Hispanic whites become a minority. After 2010 census results suggested a crossover as early as 2040, demographers now believe the pivotal moment may be pushed back several years when new projections are released in December. The annual growth rates for Hispanics and Asians fell sharply last year to just over 2 percent, roughly half the rates in 2000 and the lowest in more than a decade. The black growth rate stayed flat at 1 percent.
(Or for comparison, Toronto will only cross 50% by 2017)
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well Rakeesh, I suppose we shall see what happens.
To answer your question, I had a fairly involving discussion with my coworker about this, and the answer and reasoning I was given was that, yes, she was going to vote for Obama for the same reason she voted for him the first time, which was simply that he is a black man, and she didn't care about any of the stats or stances or any of it. Believe me, I asked several questions, and most of the time she just laughed casually about it and said she didn't care about the political hooplah. "Romney's an old rich white guy", she told me. "Obama's black so he'll look after his own." That's all she needed to know. She said she didn't have the time or energy to do all that research anyway. And besides, if a black guy became the president, that was a win.
And yes, race played a role in the last election, just like it's going to play one this time around. If you don't think people went out and voted simply because they wanted to support someone of the same race, then that is delusional. Most of these people (on both sides) were not very informed about it; they just wanted to support or slam Obama because he was black. Race is very important when it comes to the election. You might not think Americans are that one dimensional about certain things, but they are. People are shallow and selfish, swayed by silly words and pretty faces. If you don't think that's true, you really don't understand America.
But I digress, when the election happens, my prediction is that Obama wins. He's got too many groups behind him. He's not white, he's already the President, he appeals to the lower class, and he's a democrat. Each of those groups will land him a TON of votes. Romney is a republican, an old rich white guy (very unrelatable), and he's never been President. Sure, to you and me, these might be silly things to focus on, but not for most of America. For most people, these are precisely what they'll look at, because that's all they've had time to notice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My primary dispute, though I take issue with several other things you claimed on factual or reasoning grounds, was the equivalence you suggested between refusing to vote for a n*%%er and endorsing a black man because he'll look out for his own, supposedly.
You might have meant they're both racist or mostly racially motivated, though you'd be wrong in the former and have a case in the latter. But to equate them is to say that a member of a minority who votes for a member of a minority, the first to contend, for that reason is just as objectionable as the guy who won't vote for a n*%#er.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Seems dubious to me too, the pivot date reported here is 2040.
Now that you mention this, I think you're right. I am pretty sure that the study I was referring to was saying that it was going to happen soon, not that it already had. Apologies for that. We were shown the numbers in a humanities class a few years ago, when our professor broke it all down for us and explained that pretty soon (he gave dates, but I can't for the life of me remember them) the population was going to see a huge shift in minority/majority numbers, and that Caucasians were in turn going to be the minority (but still the majority if you take each race separately).
Anyway, my original point was simply that the minorities make up, when pooled together, a powerfully large number of votes that can stagger the election in whichever way they see fit. And in this particular election's case, Obama holds that vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and as for not understanding America...you are arguing that an incumbent minority contender is *more* advantaged in a time of ongoing major recession with the end only dubiously in sight, whose presidency has been mired in that recession throughout.
Tell me some more about who understands how elections work? Tell me more about how if Romney loses, it won't be so much his fault because Obama had a lock in the first place? Perhaps this ties directly in with your drastic overstatement of minority political power in this country. You're just enormously, and I mean by non-whites would need to double their current numbers to be neck and neck, wrong about that.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: My primary dispute, though I take issue with several other things you claimed on factual or reasoning grounds, was the equivalence you suggested between refusing to vote for a n*%%er and endorsing a black man because he'll look out for his own, supposedly.
You might have meant they're both racist or mostly racially motivated, though you'd be wrong in the former and have a case in the latter. But to equate them is to say that a member of a minority who votes for a member of a minority, the first to contend, for that reason is just as objectionable as the guy who won't vote for a n*%#er.
Why is it wrong for a white guy to not vote for a black guy because he's black, but it's okay for a black guy to vote for a black guy because he's black? If both of these voters are unwilling to listen to the other side, then how is it not racist? By definition, isn't racism a statement that you will treat someone a certain way simply because of their race? Wouldn't it be racist to vote for Obama because he is black, and not for Romney because he is white? By your own logic, voting for Romney because he is white is racist, but not so for the guy who votes for Obama because he is black. I don't know, Rakeesh, they both sound pretty racially motivated to me.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm not so sure about the "stagger the election in whichever way they see fit" part. I guess if you assume that minorities all vote the same way AND a lot of white people vote that way too, then it might be true (assuming that they all vote in the first place). But whites still outnumber minorities 2:1.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and as for not understanding America...you are arguing that an incumbent minority contender is *more* advantaged in a time of ongoing major recession with the end only dubiously in sight, whose presidency has been mired in that recession throughout.
Yes, and if Romney wins or actually gets close to winning, you can come back and slam it back in my face. I won't even mind, honest. Not even a little bit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok. Just to be very clear, you're saying it's equally problematic to refuse to vote for a n*%#er as it is to vote for a member of your own minority on the basis of race and believing he will look out for his own?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wait, Rakeesh, I'm confused.
With your sarcastic remark to Jeff, are you implying it's not racist to vote for someone simply because they are a member of your race? Or it's only not racist if you and the person you're voting for are minorities? Or only not racist if you're just doing it 'cause you think the guy you're voting for is racist? Or what?
Or is it just that, yeah, it's racist, but it's less bad racism? Still despicable though, right?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I'm not so sure about the "stagger the election in whichever way they see fit" part. I guess if you assume that minorities all vote the same way AND a lot of white people vote that way too, then it might be true (assuming that they all vote in the first place). But whites still outnumber minorities 2:1.
40% of the population is a large number of people, Jon. Maybe some of them vote for Romney, but I think it's a safe bet to say that most will follow Obama. Even if they don't all vote, many will. Couple that with the Democratic vote and you've got a pretty large group of people backing the man in the pretty chair for another term in office.
But who knows? Maybe they'll decide they prefer Mittins in office. After all, he did make that remark about 47% of Americans being freeloaders (or did he call them stupid? Oh well, I don't remember).
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok. Just to be very clear, you're saying it's equally problematic to refuse to vote for a n*%#er as it is to vote for a member of your own minority on the basis of race and believing he will look out for his own?
Yes, Rakeesh, because morally speaking they are completely the same. It is still racism.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: ... By definition, isn't racism a statement that you will treat someone a certain way simply because of their race?
Technically, not really.
For example, "racism ... any action, practice, or belief that reflects ... that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488187/racism
For example, you could be blind (and deaf) and treat everyone exactly the same. But you'd still be racist if you believe that black people are inferior to white people.
Going the other way, if you give black people only red Smarties and white people only green Smarties yet believe all races are equal (or races don't exist), despite treating races differently, you wouldn't be racist because your candy giving doesn't reflect anything except for your own strangeness.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Obama certainly had his share of fact-stretching and fuzzy math and he's been called on it by the same fact-checkers, but nowhere on Mitt's scale. Romney won the debate -- and he clearly won it -- by being loud, talking over everyone else, and repeating his lies so many times Obama was unable to keep up with them all.
Chris, I quoted some bits of this with credit given to you on Facebook. I hope you don't mind.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Going the other way, if you give black people only red Smarties and white people only green Smarties
Best. Analogy. Ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You didn't say 'large number' before, Jeff. You said it's the majority vote. This is factually wrong, by a wide margin.
--------
Dan, not despicable at all in one case. Unwise and foolish I would say, and racially motivated and even racist. Despicable? Don't make me laugh. It never ceases to amaze me (and this is only partially addressed to you and Jeff) at just how quickly whites in our country insist minorities just get past letting racial concerns color their vision, or else be deemed the same as the guys who long for days of fire hoses and attack dogs.
It's not the same, and it's not despicable. Just for fun, how many minority members are there in Congress? How many women? But no, we say, secure in the ability not to take a critical look at ourselves in the majority. Any decision made by minorities or women to vote on the basis of this enormous, staggering example of just how far we have to go...it's despicable somehow. It's just as racist as the guy who won't vote for a n*^%er.
Bunk.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Women aren't even a minority for that matter, which underscores how far we (both countries) need to go.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You didn't say 'large number' before, Jeff. You said it's the majority vote. This is factually wrong, by a wide margin.
--------
Dan, not despicable at all in one case. Unwise and foolish I would say, and racially motivated and even racist. Despicable? Don't make me laugh. It never ceases to amaze me (and this is only partially addressed to you and Jeff) at just how quickly whites in our country insist minorities just get past letting racial concerns color their vision, or else be deemed the same as the guys who long for days of fire hoses and attack dogs.
It's not the same, and it's not despicable. Just for fun, how many minority members are there in Congress? How many women? But no, we say, secure in the ability not to take a critical look at ourselves in the majority. Any decision made by minorities or women to vote on the basis of this enormous, staggering example of just how far we have to go...it's despicable somehow. It's just as racist as the guy who won't vote for a n*^%er.
Bunk.
Weird.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think you're describing two things here, Rakeesh, and conflating them. But there's an important difference between them. Let me see if I can articulate it.
The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Don't make me laugh.
quote: It's not the same, and it's not despicable.
Now you're reaching into morally gray terrain. I agree with you that it's a great thing to push for progress and equality, but when you vote for someone without knowing their politics, and instead you vote because they have the same skin color that you do, well, that's pretty awful. Heck, it's downright despicable.
Why? Because you are cheating the American people (and yourself) out of the best chance they have of getting the best leader. Sure, you're pushing your own race forward (or your sex), but is that decision right for your country? Not necessarily.
Furthermore, no matter how you look at it, both are committing stupid acts of prejudice. You are throwing out the other candidate because of their race, and that's wrong. You can gloss over the reasoning and say it's because of this or because of that, but it's still wrong.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, I can see how it's not technically racism by the definition Mucus posted. It's making a decision based on race when it's supposed to be based on merit, but you're doing it for Social Justice, not because you think whites are inferior.
So if the only motivation that is racist is that you think X race is superior to Y race, then you're right, it's not racist.
I think a lot of us intuitively use something more akin to the old MLK quote to define racism: judging someone by their skin color instead of the content of their ideas.
So, assuming this usage, can you explain how what I described in my above post isn't racist?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can't assume that usage because I think what is eloquent in a speech isn't necessarily what reflects reality.
ex: pollsters have to treat people differently by race
quote:Over-sampling is the “selective application of a higher sampling fraction to rare sub-groups of particular interest in the population studied, s as to ensure that the final sample includes a sufficient number of these rare cases to permit separate analysis” • Screeners can be included within a survey design in order to facilitate location of the rare population within the frame population
By the over-simplified definition of "treat someone a certain way simply because of their race" that would be racist, but I would argue that it is not.
Edit to add: Alternatively, I probably should have just looked up the guy's views
quote:King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."
King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).
In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."
[ October 05, 2012, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: 40% of the population is a large number of people, Jon. Maybe some of them vote for Romney, but I think it's a safe bet to say that most will follow Obama.
It's 34%, not 40%. It is a large number of people, but it's very clearly in the minority. I still think it's a pretty big assumption that most will vote and that most of those that vote will follow Obama. Voter turnout is usually around 50% or so in general elections, and it's lower for minorities than for whites.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just to inform this discussion with some (more) numbers:
- African-Americans, who constitute about 12% of the US population, have overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic candidate for President since 1932, regardless of that candidate's race. A large part of this is that Democratic policies are viewed as favorable to the poor, and in the US being black and being poor is correlated. However, the Democratic share of the black vote did increase significantly in 2008 (from 88% in 2004 to 95% in 2008) and it's expected to be just as high this year, if not higher. To me, this indicates that there is possibly a racial component to the support for Obama among the black share of the electorate.
- The overall effect is difficult to disentagle, however, from broader societal effects. Obama's share of the white vote increased by appr. 5% over Kerry's, indicating that some or all of the 7% shift in the black population is probably explainable by non-racial exogenous effects.
- Another interesting effect is that, despite being a fairly constant proportion of the overall population, African-Americans' share of the electorate has increased in each of the last four presidential elections, with the biggest increase coming last year (when they went from 11% of the electorate to 12%).
- The story of Latinos is similar to that of blacks. In previous elections, their vote share has been quite a bit smaller than their population share, however this has been slowly changing over time. That said, while African-Americans' population share and voter share are now approximately equal, Latinos (who make up appr. 16.5% of the population) still are significantly underrepresented in the voting population (only 9% of the voting population). They also disproportionately vote for Democrats, and have for several elections. However, the proportions aren't significantly different than whites with similar economic traits, who also tend to vote for Democrats, although Latinos do consistently vote at slightly higher levels for Democrats than their white economic counterparts.
- With respect to Congress, 82% of Representatives are white, 10% are black, 6% are Latino or Hispanic, 2% are something else (mostly Asian). In the Senate, 96% of Senators are white, 2% are Latino or Hispanic, and 2% are Asian (there are currently no African-American senators).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Two things, Mucus: I didn't say "treat someone a different way because of their race." That's vague enough that it includes, say, a clothing designer who picks a different color scheme for a black person than they did for a white person. Of course there are examples where treating someone differently based on race makes sense.
I didn't say that, though. I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I paraphrased his quote because I think the quote, broadly speaking, matches the intuitive definition of racism that I hold: Judging someone not by their ideas but by their race.
If someone says "No way I'm voting for that guy, he's black," then they are being racist. Even if they don't think blacks are inferior to whites, and instead they just expect that black people will probably "look out for their own" and pass policies that hurt white people. I still think that's racist.
You and Rakeesh don't, I guess? Do you think that your position is the more common? You think most people, if I described the above paragraph, would say: "Nah, he's not racist, because to be racist you have to think another race is inferior. He just doesn't trust black people not to screw him over. Makes sense."
Final thought: Is anti-semitism racist? Because this mentality is incredibly common in anti-semites. Many of them would vehemently deny thinking Jews are inferior, they just think Jews are looking to control society and screw over all non-Jews.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Some FNC commentators are predicting that since Obama was blown out of the water by Romney in the first debate, Obama and crew will resort to even nastier, more negative campaigning, especially including playing the race card.
The Obama supporters are in a total panic about Obama's poor performance in the debate, and are coming up with anything they can think of to excuse it. Chris Matthews (ol' tingle-foot) of MSNBC was nearly hysterical, waving his arms and crying "What happened to Obama?" Al Gore pointed out that Obama arrived in Denver only a couple of hours before the debate, while Romney had been there for several days doing his debate prep there, so that Obama did not have time to adjust to the thinner air at Denver's 5,000 foot altitude.
It is ironic that Obama and his crew would claim that Romney has changed his positions, when one of the main characteristics of Obama's campaigning in 2008 was changing his position constantly, literally from campaign stop to campaign stop, to make it more agreeable to whatever group he was addressing. This is one of the things that tipped me off right away that he was a fake. Obama probably figures that since he does it as a matter of routine, Romney must be doing it too. Obama is the worst liar and deliberate deceiver in the history of American politics. For him to accuse a genuinely religious and moral and honorable and accomplished man such as Mitt Romney of being a liar is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Even if Romney's position has "evolved" over the years, that would be better than stubbornly holding on to a position that ought to be changed. A president must have such flexibility as truth unfolds to him.
But has Romney actually been inconsistent? Or is it rather the case that his position is inconsistent with the way Democrats have been continually misrepresenting his position? There is little more pitiable than a politician who believes his own propaganda, and confuses his campaign ads with the truth.
Romney has now said emphatically before an estimated audience of close to 70 million people that he is not going to lower taxes for the rich, and is not going to raise taxes for the middle class. He made a number of definite declarations. It will be interesting to see how well he sticks by his promises and fulfills them when he is president. And will he get the same positive results that Ronald Reagan did, when Reagan pursued the same policies Romney espouses?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hey ron I posed a very simple direct question to you and you have not answered it yet.
Answer my question!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I didn't say "treat someone a different way because of their race."
Jeff C did, I'm addressing both parties at once.
quote:I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I disagree. MLK is obviously an important figure in your societies racial history so I think his experience in having a dream and implementing that dream is highly instructive.
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur
This is an important point. The "racist" that picks the black couple to rent their home even though there was a more qualified white couple strictly because they felt that it would be easier for the white couple to find another place is a different category of person than the "racist" that turns down the most qualified couple because he doesn't want "those people" living in his house.
We can call them both racist but we aren't really talking about the same thing when we do so because the connotative baggage of the word "racism" is too heavy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
One of his "definite declarations" was that under his plan, people with pre-existing conditions would still be covered. This is completely untrue, something his campaign admitted previously and again under questioning after the campaign. Romney's model is to make sure people with "continuous coverage" -- i.e. "already have health care" -- won't be dropped if conditions develop or they change plans. It does nothing for people without coverage at all. And that's already the law!
"Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan," Romney said. Lie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
I am cartwheeling in to give a retro-80's double thumbs up to this.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Over the last few months Romney has specified $5 trillion in tax cuts, a 20% cut in income tax rates, a 40% cut in the corporate tax rate, repeal of the estate tax and alternative minimum tax and elimination of taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for households with incomes below $200,000. he has not said how he will pay for this, beyond a vague mention of limiting exemptions and this week's talk of a deductions cap, neither of which come close to filling the gap. Where's the money coming from, Ron? Shuttering PBS?
(Psst: Reagan did it, in part, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act by increasing capital gains taxes and treating them like ordinary income. Think Romney will be doing that?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the five trillion tax cuts figure Obama hammered Romney on is one that seems true, then upon closer examination looks like it is not actually true, but then the numbers come in and, it is true. Not that it's any big deal that it is easy to hammer on a completely impossible lie of a tax plan, but
.. jesus, it sounds like such dramatic hyperbole to call it a 'completely impossible lie of a tax plan' but it is not intellectually dishonest at all to call it that aah.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jeff, I note that you still haven't addressed your major factual inaccuracy earlier in this discussion re: just how large the minority population in this country is.
quote:Yes, Rakeesh, because morally speaking they are completely the same. It is still racism.
Alright. For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that they're both completely racism. They're not, but let's just move past that. They're completely the same? Someone who votes on the basis of attempting to see their own minority race, still seriously disadvantaged economically, politically, in terms of education, in representation, so on and so forth, is completely the same as the person who says he won't vote for someone because they're a racial slur?
One person is, by their vote, explicitly attempting to keep a race down just because that race is inferior. The other person is explicitly trying to lift their own race up, because of the perception (factually accurate) that their race is not getting a fair shake in our society just yet. Both are decisions informed by racial politics. I see what you mean when you claim they're both racist, though as Mucus explained that's simply wrong too. But even if they were, what possible reasoning could you use to claim they're equally reprehensible? That they're the same? By this reasoning, all forms of violence are equivalent to one another.
quote:Now you're reaching into morally gray terrain. I agree with you that it's a great thing to push for progress and equality, but when you vote for someone without knowing their politics, and instead you vote because they have the same skin color that you do, well, that's pretty awful. Heck, it's downright despicable.
Tough talk for a white American dude, if memory serves. Because it is of course just a coincidence that blacks have been between 9-14% of America's population for centuries, and it was never even politically thinkable until the past decade for a black man to be elected-much less a black woman, yes?
If you would drop this absurd equivalence you insist on, we might have the basis for a discussion. But whites in this country have been voting on the basis of skin color for centuries, and have actually been succeeding in advancing the cause of 'our race'. To suggest that a minority member voting for the very first chance they ever have to go against that pattern in our country is the same, is equally awful, remains distasteful to say the least. It remains the attitude of someone who has lived in the privileged section of American politics and hasn't really stopped to consider how the other half (well, excuse me, roughly third, just to belabor that half nonsense from before) lives beyond claiming 'racism is bad' and then considering the case closed.
Senoj's points are very much worth your consideration, Jeff. Consider this as well: the advent of a serious black American presidential candidate was met by...a roughly 10% over historic Democratic voting rates among that group. 10%, from 88 to 95%. That's large, that's an impressive gain of course, and certainly is substantially due to racial themes...but then you've got to consider, also as he points out, that the white vote increased by about 5% too.
So your theme of racially lockstep Democratic voting, your idea that Obama has the election sewn up because of his skin color, is simply nonsense. It's wrong because your perception of how many minorities there actually are in this country was hugely wrong, and it's wrong when you look at the facts of voting patterns.
Morally speaking it's less simple to demonstrate how bad these ideas of yours are, because things get murkier of course. But your theme there too, that a racist is a racist is a racist is a racist, and it doesn't matter if one racist only dates within their race and if the other just has an aversion for Tyler Perry movies and the third wears a hood and burns crosses, is also bunk. There are degrees. It's a complicated question.
----------------- Dan,
quote:The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
This is precisely what I'm talking about. This equivalence being drawn here. Us white dudes comfortable in the 21st century, growing up being taught that the race problem is in the past, that MLK pretty much took care of business, are quick to suggest that the guy who won't vote for a racial slur is just as inexcusable as the person who notes a factual, centuries-old trend and tries with their vote to work against it. For one thing, as Mucus explained it's not exactly racism-we're far, far, far, far, FAR from the point where voting for a minority on the basis of their skin color would disadvantage even in the slightest the majority in this country. Or do you think minorities are thrilled with how well Obama has handled issues near and dear to their political hearts?
As for excusable, my response to you is basically the same as it is to Jeff: we have been, historically, really effective at screening out minority politicians from the political process. We still are, in fact. So sure, absolutely, I can excuse someone from trying to hurry tearing down that system a little.
As for the MLK quote, well I can see why you'd consider a discussion of what he actually professed and believed on the matter of race in this country to be irrelevant. Sure, the perception (among whites) is often that what he meant was that we need to eradicate conscious, thinking racism from our hearts and minds and perceptions, and then things will be hunky dory.
That's not what he meant, though.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] Jeff, I note that you still haven't addressed your major factual inaccuracy earlier in this discussion re: just how large the minority population in this country is.
Actually, Rakeesh, I admitted that my information was wrong, if you look back a bit. I even explained how the idea came to be in my head, and that I must have confused it with what is going to happen in a few decades. Look back a page or two, Rakeesh. There's a reason I haven't brought it up again.
quote:For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that they're both completely racism. They're not, but let's just move past that.
If you are going to say the first sentence, don't say the second. One negates the other.
quote:They're completely the same? Someone who votes on the basis of attempting to see their own minority race, still seriously disadvantaged economically, politically, in terms of education, in representation, so on and so forth, is completely the same as the person who says he won't vote for someone because they're a racial slur?
I'll address your initial question, which is, "They're completely the same?"
If I go out and steal from a man, and then I go out and steal from another, does the crime not mean the same thing? What if I steal from a rich man, and then I steal from a poor man? Is it suddenly different? Should the judgement of that crime be different now, just because we feel more empathy for the poor man?
Well sure, you might rationalize, the rich man has so much more, so the crime isn't as bad. The poor man needs that thing you stole more than the rich man does, because he's poor.
I would say no, as would the law, because stealing is stealing and it is still wrong. My argument to you is not one of rationalization or even that the motivation behind the crime is the same. Surely, the intentions of the black woman are somewhat better than the hateful white man, but aren't they both racially motivated and hurtful to the process of election? If you vote for one person because of their race, but not the other, aren't you cheating the country by not understanding the facts? The simple fact is that they are, each of them, contributing to a problem, no matter their intentions, because the process of having a fair and proper election has become broken. The black woman refuses to care about the facts and has made up her mind to vote for the man who looks like she does, just like the white man has decided to vote for the man who looks like him. Both parties are sharing the crime, no matter how you try to rationalize their motivation.
quote:One person is, by their vote, explicitly attempting to keep a race down just because that race is inferior. The other person is explicitly trying to lift their own race up, because of the perception (factually accurate) that their race is not getting a fair shake in our society just yet.
Yet, is not the white man also voting, in turn, for the white politician because he believes that he will look out for his interests? Both sides are voting for someone who looks like they do. There might be other factors, such as a deplorable hatred for the Other, but that does not negate the fact that each side is still racially motivated in their decision making.
quote:But even if they were, what possible reasoning could you use to claim they're equally reprehensible?
They both hinder the election process, furthering ignorance and promoting racial preference.
quote:That they're the same? By this reasoning, all forms of violence are equivalent to one another.
Actually, that analogy doesn't really work in this scenario. In this scenario, both outcomes are the exact same, despite each person's motivations. Killing a man and punching a man reap completely different results; on the other hand, voting for somebody when you don't know anything about their politics or policies, but because they look a certain way, ultimately contributes to the same end, which is that it cheats a nation out of the best possible leader. That's the crime here.
quote:Tough talk for a white American dude, if memory serves.
Don't use my race against me. It only comes off as petty.
quote: If you would drop this absurd equivalence you insist on, we might have the basis for a discussion. But whites in this country have been voting on the basis of skin color for centuries, and have actually been succeeding in advancing the cause of 'our race'. To suggest that a minority member voting for the very first chance they ever have to go against that pattern in our country is the same, is equally awful, remains distasteful to say the least. It remains the attitude of someone who has lived in the privileged section of American politics and hasn't really stopped to consider how the other half (well, excuse me, roughly third, just to belabor that half nonsense from before) lives beyond claiming 'racism is bad' and then considering the case closed.
Let me be very clear here. I am not promoting either candidate in any way, nor am I saying it is reprehensible for a person of a certain race to vote for someone of their own race. My issue is that they are doing it for the sole reason that the person shares their skin color.
You bring up the fact that whites have been voting for whites on this exact same basis for centuries, but never once did I say that this was OK. In fact, I quite deplore it and find it detestable. I, myself, do not vote based upon a person's skin color, so I in turn expect my fellow Americans to do the same.
quote:So your theme of racially lockstep Democratic voting, your idea that Obama has the election sewn up because of his skin color, is simply nonsense.
Actually, Rakeesh, I stated that it was a factor. A major factor, yes, but only one factor. I listed several of them. I did this so that I could point out that he was a member of certain social groups: democrats and minorities. He also appeals to the poor for many reasons, but also because he doesn't come from a wealthy family. The more people who can relate to a candidate, the stronger their chance of winning.
When asked why they voted for George W. Bush back in 2000, many votes explained that he simply "looked like the kind of guy you could have a beer with". They didn't mention his politics. They didn't talk about his stance on China, since that was a growing concern at the time. No, they talked about how he seemed like someone they could sit down and relate to.
quote: Morally speaking it's less simple to demonstrate how bad these ideas of yours are, because things get murkier of course. But your theme there too, that a racist is a racist is a racist is a racist, and it doesn't matter if one racist only dates within their race and if the other just has an aversion for Tyler Perry movies and the third wears a hood and burns crosses, is also bunk. There are degrees. It's a complicated question.
Sure, Rakeesh, but it doesn't change the underlining message. By voting for a candidate simply because of their race, you are still allowing the idea of racism to exist. You aren't getting rid of it; you're furthering it. Racism doesn't just exist when it's convenient for you; it exists because it exists, and it's that simple.
Both individuals presented in this discussion have shown that they couldn't care less about the issues of this election, that they would rather live in complete ignorance and still go out and cast their votes for a person that appeals to them on the lowest possible qualification---their physical appearance.
That's wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The first is caring about trends, and how they indicate that the group you identify with is getting unfair treatment.
The second is choosing to make individual decisions that are socially accepted as ostensibly decisions about merit/ability/etc. and instead making those decisions based on race. Even if you're doing it because those aforementioned trends worry you, this still seems like blatant, inexcusable racism. Can you explain how it isn't, exactly?
As for excusable, my response to you is basically the same as it is to Jeff: we have been, historically, really effective at screening out minority politicians from the political process. We still are, in fact. So sure, absolutely, I can excuse someone from trying to hurry tearing down that system a little.
Did I correctly bold your answer to my question? If not, could you repeat your answer to my question? Preferably without all the extraneous hostility, condescension, and implications that my arguments are invalid because of my race. If you honestly believe that, you're welcome not to argue with me, but if you argue with me, try to focus on the content of what I say and not my skin color.
If I got it right, and you're saying it's not racist... okay. You refer to what Mucus said. So racism only means "thinks X race is superior/inferior."
So it wouldn't be racist for a white guy to say "man, this black guy is brilliant and qualified, but I'm afraid he'll screw over white people like me, so I won't vote for him." Or "This black guy is brilliant and qualified for the job, but I feel bad for this stupid trailer trash white guy who applied, so I'll hire him. The black guy is smart enough to get a job anywhere"
Right? Not racist at all, yeah?
----------------
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:I also didn't actually quote MLK, so whether or not his views match with what I'm saying is also basically irrelevant.
I disagree. MLK is obviously an important figure in your societies racial history so I think his experience in having a dream and implementing that dream is highly instructive.
Sure, but it's irrelevant as a rebuttal to my point.
If someone says: "I believe in what Thomas Jefferson said: Socialism is the most humane political system in the world. For X reasons."
It's not actually an argument to say "Nope, Jefferson never said that!"
You're ignoring the actual content. If it makes you feel better, pretend I didn't mention MLK. You're welcome to mention him when you like, but if you're disputing what I said, then dispute the content.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Popularity is completely relevant when we're discussing usage of words, actually. As relevant as the OED or Britannica or whatever it was you linked earlier.
But if you mean, popularity isn't relevant to issues of racism, because most people are too blinded by their privilege and unconsciously maintain the pervasive, subtle oppression of black people... much like the "patriarchy" that keeps women down... I really don't have much else to say.
I mean, other than "it's crap." There are no good arguments for that stuff.
As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy that can be used to discredit someone's opinion, deflect criticism, and otherwise shut down rational conversation. If you really buy into it, then I don't think there's anything I could possibly say to change your mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, am I understanding this correctly (I don't know honestly)
Do you think "white privilege" is not like, a real thing, it's just a fallacy? Like there's no actual advantage conferred by various means, in sum, to being white in this country?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
As a purple female, I find this offensive.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm going to jump into the racism discussion against my better judgement, mostly because I'm bored and on my long bus commute home. I'll be talking in the abstract, mostly.
Although the discussion has long since moved past whether the number of non-white citizens have made whites a plurality, I think it would be a good idea not just to look at the demographic breakdown of the number of citizens according to their race. I want to know the relative turn out rates, numbers of registered voters, and numbers of those voters disenfranchised by felony convictions of each racial category compared to their percent of the larger population.
Even if its true that 34% of citizens in the United States are non-white(I'm willing to believe that number), what is the percent of non-white voter turnout in the election? If there is a significant difference between the two--which I'd wager there is--it demands investigation. This not just related to race, I'd also want to see voter participation rates broken down by sex, income bracket, region, religion, etc.
But to the question of voting for or against someone based upon their race, I suppose I should preface my opinion by saying that I support affirmative action. I'm also willing to admit to the fact that Obama's being black is a part of the reason I'll be voting for him. When we look at the racial demographic breakdowns in this country, we see there is still a lot of inequality between races according to primary social goods. I include in my list of primary social goods things like cultural capital, social capital, as well as liquid capital and assets. I take the evidence of gross inequality between races as evidence that there are systematic problems and not just social issues generating the inequality.
As a middle class white guy, I've never had to experience the effects of racism in the same way that a black man does. Even if I know the problem exists, I believe there is value to the knowledge gained by experience. Personal experience allows you to compare the struggles you face against others you've endured. I'm not so arrogant as to think that just because I know there's gross inequalities that I also know what it's like to face them.
It's like the idea of homosexuals in favor of homosexual rights being painted as a single issue voter. Gay people don't only face discrimination for being gay, they also struggle with rising gas prices, pollution, and generalized national security. As a straight man, I have no idea what its like to experience that discrimination and contrast that with the difficulties of other aspects in my life. But I trust the judgement of a gay person on issues relating to homosexual discrimination far more than a person who hasn't experienced it.
President Obama, as a black man, has faced many obstacles in his life by virtue of being black. He's also an extremely well educated man, demonstrates a judgment I like in my leaders, and his political alignment, while slightly right of mine, is far more in line with my own than Romney's.
One could object to my saying that Obama being black is part of the reason I'm supporting him by saying its not his race that I'm voting on, but the experiences he has had by virtue of being black. To that I respond I wouldn't think he's had those experiences if it weren't for the fact that I've read his books and that he's black.
So do I think I'm a racist for letting Obama's race influence my vote? No. I think I'm a racist because I have been socially conditioned into having prejudiced opinions of people without any evidence but the race of the individual. I'm also self-aware of my racism and work to accommodate for it without over compensation.
(Edited for clarity and cohesion. Cut me a break, I'm on my phone.)
[ October 05, 2012, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wait, am I understanding this correctly (I don't know honestly)
Do you think "white privilege" is not like, a real thing, it's just a fallacy? Like there's no actual advantage conferred by various means, in sum, to being white in this country?
No, if that's what you mean, then I agree it exists.
That's not the way I've typically seen it used. The place I typically see the term (and "male privilege") used is the Social Justice community, and both terms mean a lot more than just "there are some social advantages to being white/male."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: As far as I've seen it used, "white privilege" (like "male privilege") is just an easily twisted amorphous fallacy...
This is a sentence that could only be uttered by a white male.
Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Do you think that your position is the more common?
Popularity is not relevant. Most people probably think that "racist" is a generic slur without really thinking it through just like Fox News uses "socialist" or Mitt Romney railing against "redistribution."
In reality, there are subtle differences in what terms like racial discrimination, racist, or white privilege mean. Smashing them together leads to ignorance about these critical problems .
Popularity is completely relevant when we're discussing usage of words, actually. As relevant as the OED or Britannica or whatever it was you linked earlier.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but if you are, that's probably the root of the miscommunication.
I have almost zero interest in the usage of words. What I have interest in is racism and what approaches people make take to deal with it. (e.g. voting for representation)
For example, we can imagine that in a state that we'll call South Barolina, people have gone on a very successful campaign to call eating pudding "racism" and suddenly many people are "racists." But that doesn't mean that the concept (or the problem) of (actual) racism has disappeared or that I'm suddenly interested in talking about pudding, it just means we have a oddly useless new phrase for describing people that eat pudding.
Similarly, I'm not talking about racism-as-useless-definition, or racism-as-slur, I'm talking about actual racism.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So you quoted the Britannica definition just because you agree with it, and wanted the trappings of authority?
Okay. I disagree with it. Let's not rely on what's "technically" racism-according-to-Britannica.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jeff,
quote:Actually, Rakeesh, I admitted that my information was wrong, if you look back a bit. I even explained how the idea came to be in my head, and that I must have confused it with what is going to happen in a few decades. Look back a page or two, Rakeesh. There's a reason I haven't brought it up again.
You did acknowledge you were wrong without, that I recall, acknowledging that it was a very large error but in any event: that you so wildly overestimated the minority population in this country (without getting into a lower proportion of minority turnout, of course) doesn't seem to have impacted your notion that Obama has the election at a walk, one of the fundamental reasons being the minority vote.
So it was about more than just the number.
quote:I would say no, as would the law, because stealing is stealing and it is still wrong. My argument to you is not one of rationalization or even that the motivation behind the crime is the same. Surely, the intentions of the black woman are somewhat better than the hateful white man, but aren't they both racially motivated and hurtful to the process of election? If you vote for one person because of their race, but not the other, aren't you cheating the country by not understanding the facts? The simple fact is that they are, each of them, contributing to a problem, no matter their intentions, because the process of having a fair and proper election has become broken. The black woman refuses to care about the facts and has made up her mind to vote for the man who looks like she does, just like the white man has decided to vote for the man who looks like him. Both parties are sharing the crime, no matter how you try to rationalize their motivation.
We're not talking about the law. But alright, your point is that stealing the 50th silver salad fork from Daddy Warbucks is the same as stealing Little Orphan Annie's second (of two) pairs of shoes, assuming she has two, because they're both stealing.
Alright. Morally speaking that's nonsense because one person is harmed much much more than the other, but I can see there's not going to be much gained by further discussion on that point.
As for facts...well. You started this discussion by suggesting Obama can take the election easily largely due to his appeal to 'the poor' and to minorities, because (and you don't come out and say this, but it's plain) most minority voters are voting on racist grounds. I guess because of talking to coworkers, or something. But your basis for this claim was hugely overestimating just how many such voters there are. So. Facts.
quote:Yet, is not the white man also voting, in turn, for the white politician because he believes that he will look out for his interests? Both sides are voting for someone who looks like they do. There might be other factors, such as a deplorable hatred for the Other, but that does not negate the fact that each side is still racially motivated in their decision making.
Except his interests aren't actually under attack. *If* they are threatened, it's a far flung future threat indeed.
quote:They both hinder the election process, furthering ignorance and promoting racial preference.
Goodness yes, they both hinder the process to the same extent. Your coworker, voting for the first black candidate for President who had a shot ever, is exactly as racially motivated as the guy who goes out of his way not to vote for racial slurs. Both will change their minds about as often, and as time passes and her minority achieves something approaching equal representation, she'll continue to vote color.
Yeah.
quote:Don't use my race against me. It only comes off as petty.
Likening your coworker to your virulently bigoted step dad, that was petty. This is just me pointing out, bluntly, how thoroughly you live in white privilege.
quote:Let me be very clear here. I am not promoting either candidate in any way, nor am I saying it is reprehensible for a person of a certain race to vote for someone of their own race. My issue is that they are doing it for the sole reason that the person shares their skin color.
Mm-hm. So when you say, as you have, that Obama has a major advantage in the election because of how many racist votes he'll get (this is what you've said), that's not a rejection of the candidate?
quote:You bring up the fact that whites have been voting for whites on this exact same basis for centuries, but never once did I say that this was OK. In fact, I quite deplore it and find it detestable. I, myself, do not vote based upon a person's skin color, so I in turn expect my fellow Americans to do the same.
Oh, of course not. Unfortunately I tend to think problems such as generations of culturally and legally enforced racism are a bit more complex and enduring than 'I don't vote on skin color, if everyone just did that it would be great'.
It would be interesting to know, in detail, just what questions you asked to determine your coworker knew *nothing* about Obama except his race.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Rakeesh, I have said this multiple times now. I was not only referring to race. I said that he was part of that group, the minority group, and that he also was a democrat, and also came from a poor upbringing. These three things combined will get him the minority vote, the democratic vote, and the poor vote. Maybe not all of them, but certainly most.
quote:Mm-hm. So when you say, as you have, that Obama has a major advantage in the election because of how many racist votes he'll get (this is what you've said), that's not a rejection of the candidate?
No, Rakeesh, it's not, because I voted for the man once before. If you want, I can sit here and tell you how Romney is a part of certain groups, and how he will undoubtedly have their vote because of it. That's how politics works, as I've said, because people generally vote on the person they relate to the most.
quote:Likening your coworker to your virulently bigoted step dad, that was petty. This is just me pointing out, bluntly, how thoroughly you live in white privilege.
I likened them because they both exude ignorance on the subject of politics. They are vastly different in many ways, but of this they share a commonality. And saying that I live in white privilege shows an exceedingly large amount of ignorance on your part. I have not brought up your personal upbringing, nor have I aimed to directly insult you on a personal level, yet you have done so twice thus far, shadowing each insult with sarcasm and disdain. If you disagree with me, so be it, but leave it at that and try, at least for now, to be civil in your discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
That you are self-aware enough to know that your shameful racism is shameful enough that someone will comment on it is not a point in your favor, Dan. Look, seriously, I know you're smart enough to know what the term "white privilege" actually means, and I know you're smart enough to know that it absolutely exists; I know you've seen the studies demonstrating this, and know you understand the sociological and psychological factors at play, here. So what you're really objecting to is the idea that it's okay to actively suppress the power of an overpowered group in favor of a group that has been actively oppressed in the past and is consequently underpowered. This is entirely consistent with your personal philosophy; I understand that. But don't pretend that the phenomenon that action is meant to address doesn't exist; just man up and admit that, yes, it exists and it's a shame but you honestly don't care enough to allow it to violate your personal principles.
(And, Jeff, stealing from the poor is indeed a far, far worse crime than stealing from the rich. The law is only a tool -- it is not a goal -- and is at best one of many factors that help determine the morality of an action. There are many legal things which are immoral, and many illegal things that are moral.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Like clockwork!
That's a perfect response, Tom. I mean, it could not be more on the nose if you were my sockpuppet and I'd written it for you.
That you are self-aware enough to know that your shameful racism is shameful enough that someone will comment on it is not a point in your favor, Dan. Look, seriously, I know you're smart enough to know what the term "white privilege" actually means, and I know you're smart enough to know that it absolutely exists; I know you've seen the studies demonstrating this, and know you understand the sociological and psychological factors at play, here. So what you're really objecting to is the idea that it's okay to actively suppress the power of an overpowered group in favor of a group that has been actively oppressed in the past and is consequently underpowered. This is entirely consistent with your personal philosophy; I understand that. But don't pretend that the phenomenon that action is meant to address doesn't exist; just man up and admit that, yes, it exists and it's a shame but you honestly don't care enough to allow it to violate your personal principles.
Well, sure, you're right that I object to hurting people for the sake of other people. That's true! Even if the people that are being hurt are better off that the people being helped, I still think that's deeply immoral. No "manning up" required, not ashamed of it in the least.
That being said, the context in which I normally see the "X Privilege" terms being used are as I said earlier. Not as a descriptive term to indicate that whites or males have advantages, but as a term to indicate that because of these advantages the privileged group is invalidated. They can't understand/can't comment/can't criticize/etc. Whatever the need of the moment is. It's used as a very versatile ad hominem, essentially.
What amazed me is how immediately and blatantly you demonstrated the mindset I'm talking about. Do you honestly not see that? I'm pretty surprised.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What amazed me is how immediately and blatantly you demonstrated the mindset I'm talking about.
Heh. I imagine that you probably get a lot of that, since "I don't get why people say that I, as a white guy, don't really get to give my perspective on what being a minority is like" is pretty much an invitation to have that repeatedly explained to you, and it's the entirety of what you've been doing in this thread. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, no, not so much. I mean, no, I don't get it all that often (It's a pretty cheesy and intellectually lazy way to argue, which is why I am legitimately, honestly surprised to see you so gleefully use it). And also, no, I'm not saying anything about my perspective on "what being a minority is like."
I have been giving my perspective on racism, of course. But it's pretty weird to characterize any white person's opinion of racism as trying to claim "what being a minority is like."
Of course, you and Rakeesh and other whities feel totally comfortable giving your opinions on racism. So it's not really inappropriate for a white man to talk about racism. Only if he's criticizing some prevailing attitudes about racism is it not okay.
Which, again, is why claims like this are really just a tool used to deflect criticism and avoid rational discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're missing the point. The point is not that you can't give or have a perspective on racism or racial matters. The point is that you should show, should have, some deep abiding skepticism as to how accurate, how valid, how reflective of the actual world that opinion is because...white privilege.
I would have to do a lot of research and even immersion before I would be taken seriously if I decided to speak about the living circumstances of, say, low income Catholic families in southern England who had come from generations of the same. It would be laughable and, to them, offensive particularly if I were to conclude from my far flung, ill informed perspective that things weren't that bad for them. That they didn't face any sort of serious cultural or governmental intolerance.
But just because we're all Americans, supposedly-this being another sign of that privilege, the automatic assumption that our opinion is valid and our experience relevant-us white American men have some right to have our opinion on experiences we know very little, as a group, about be respected as valid...I'm not sure, just because everyone has opinions or something.
You get to have an opinion. What you don't get is to have an opinion that conveniently fits your own perspective and serves your own interest and get to have it without being regarded with skepticism. Especially when you say (and believe, before being corrected) things like minorities are half the country. That remark, for example, is a sign of being radically out of touch with just what the race situation is. Or to say 'white privilege is usually used as a fallacy', or to quote MLK and then pivot away from actually examining his thoughts on a topic.
It's interesting how circular your argument is. You say that 'white privilege' is used as a rhetorical bludgeon against white people on racial matters. We describe white privilege and the way in which it means your perspective should be taken with a grain of salt, a substantial one, because of the way it directly supports the status quo. You exult that this serves to prove your point, without ever actually explaining why your thoughts on the nature and pervasiveness of racism should be considered as valid as opinions that don't, as you and Jeff have alluded to, hint that the problem is solved when people 'don't vote on skin color' or that all it takes is a conscious decision not to be racist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also: you cannot possibly express an opinion about racism without also making a statement, whether you mean to or not, about the minority experience. It's not an abstract, it's not a math problem, and to express what racism is or looks like means at the very least making a statement that challenges or affirms to some extent 'the minority experience'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The absolute best best best part about my white privilege is that it's everywhere, but I don't have to bother ever analyzing it or even recognizing that it's there in many ways. It's just there, inexorably, at almost every level of society. I literally don't even have to know it's there!
And that in converse is the worst part of it for persons of color slash minority races. They end up having to confront it, because it's there and it works against them, and it's frequently just right-out thrown in their faces. By a majority race comprised of individuals usually certain they are not contributing to it. Whee!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're missing the point. The point is not that you can't give or have a perspective on racism or racial matters. The point is that you should show, should have, some deep abiding skepticism as to how accurate, how valid, how reflective of the actual world that opinion is because...white privilege.
Can you explain why I should do that? I approach most things with skepticism and self-criticism, but I don't see why I should have some extra-special-deep-abiding skepticism of this in particular. Is there some reason you think it's more difficult/impossible to understand something intellectually rather than understanding it via personal experience?
Often times people don't look very critically at their personal experiences in the first place, and make lots of mistakes in accurately explaining their experiences. Do you disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But just because we're all Americans, supposedly-this being another sign of that privilege, the automatic assumption that our opinion is valid and our experience relevant-us white American men have some right to have our opinion on experiences we know very little, as a group, about be respected as valid...I'm not sure, just because everyone has opinions or something.
There it is again... how relevant our "experience" is. Shrug.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You get to have an opinion. What you don't get is to have an opinion that conveniently fits your own perspective and serves your own interest and get to have it without being regarded with skepticism. Especially when you say (and believe, before being corrected) things like minorities are half the country. That remark, for example, is a sign of being radically out of touch with just what the race situation is. Or to say 'white privilege is usually used as a fallacy', or to quote MLK and then pivot away from actually examining his thoughts on a topic.
Heh, again, I used a bad paraphrase of an MLK quote in the context of an argument I was making. It actually didn't occur to me that people would assume I was trying to use MLK's authority as an argument, but I see now that it could be read that way. My mistake. I don't think such authority exists, and didn't intend to assume any of the authority you assign to MLK for myself.
Also, can you explain how what I said fits my own perspective and serves my own interest? I don't understand what you mean, so an explanation would be helpful.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's interesting how circular your argument is. You say that 'white privilege' is used as a rhetorical bludgeon against white people on racial matters. We describe white privilege and the way in which it means your perspective should be taken with a grain of salt, a substantial one, because of the way it directly supports the status quo. You exult that this serves to prove your point, without ever actually explaining why your thoughts on the nature and pervasiveness of racism should be considered as valid as opinions that don't, as you and Jeff have alluded to, hint that the problem is solved when people 'don't vote on skin color' or that all it takes is a conscious decision not to be racist.
Your responses seem equally circular to me.
One thing, though: I will never try to convince you that due to my experiences my opinion should be considered valid/as valid/more valid or whatever. This is because I don't think that people's opinions gain validity based on where they're coming from.
I think that arguments and explanations are valid based on whether or not I can think of any criticisms of them, and then whether or not my criticisms can be addressed by the person I am talking to. Repeat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Can you explain why I should do that? I approach most things with skepticism and self-criticism, but I don't see why I should have some extra-special-deep-abiding skepticism of this in particular. Is there some reason you think it's more difficult/impossible to understand something intellectually rather than understanding it via personal experience?
Well, this gets right back to white privilege which you disregard, so I don't know how much an explanation will be worth, but here goes: there's nothing special about it, to us. We're not receiving any unusual or unwarranted benefits, it seems, so to us white privilege isn't something that has to be considered-we 'know' that we abide by MLK's injunction to judge people by the content of their characters and not their skin, so to us it seems as though it's more or less a thing of the past. You should be more skeptical of it because it's there (studies on a variety of aspects of American life demonstrate this conclusively, however much anyone wishes to claim it's a fallacy), and by your (and my) nature it is harder to detect because for us it's a reality we haven't courted, we just live in it. It's a confirmation bias, so to speak, and I know you're familiar with those and why extra skepticism is needed to detect them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere. If anything, any confirmation bias I had was functioning in the opposite way that you describe, to reinforce my belief in how deeply racist society was.
I think that, to the extent cultural racism exists in our country (and it does!), I still see it. But I've taken a more skeptical and critical view of those conclusive studies, of social justice, of "white privilege," etc. as well.
Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts, and I think they are often not the best explanations. Because "social justice" is mostly just a tribal subculture designed to give people a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. And because, well, I already bitched about how I see "white privilege" used.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
There is a large subset of Social Justice Warriors which are among the most obnoxiously terrible things on the internet and its kind of frankly broken and toxic shit all wandering to the fore but the behavior of a weird subset of social justikeers does not in any way impact the truth of the matter that america is a deeply racist country with generations to go before there's any sort of real parity that prevents the ingrained socialization and inclusion of privilege to whites.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What it comes down to for me is, as I've said before, how strange and hugely unlikely the idea is that a society with cultural, legal, religious, political, and economic open racism for centuries can be thought to have overcome those problems in literally less than a tenth of the number of generations than those problems were, setting aside non-overt/on the books problems, in place.
If we were reading about a social problem of similar duration and power in a different society long in the past, few indeed would credit the majority's leaders in history books claiming the problem had been largely dealt with so quickly. Most people would (rightly) regard such a thing with skepticism.
I suppose it ties into American exceptionalism, though. We're just that good. Two or three generations since we addressed (much) of the on-the-books racism in our country, and the claim that it still persists in subtle cultural ways is just a fallacy...even though, y'know, just all racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups except 'white Christian male' are still hugely underrepresented in the upper tiers of the private sector and of government. White privilege is just a fallacy. We're just...I don't know, lucky or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But since you mentioned it, Dan, how *do* you explain those facts-underrepresentation-in my last paragraph? They are so consistent and so pervasive it cannot just be coincidence.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
We should pat ourselves on the backs for how good we have been about talking about how we have combated racism. What is really important is that people don't make me feel bad about the fact that racism exists, because I'm not the problem, I'm the GOOD white man who agrees that racism is a bad thing and shouldn't exist.
Repeat forever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Okay. I disagree with it. Let's not rely on what's "technically" racism-according-to-Britannica.
But more importantly, I don't know why one would prefer your interpretation of the MLK-definition. Not only does it not seem very useful in explaining how racial discrimination works, it has weird side-effects like defining MLK as a racist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere. If anything, any confirmation bias I had was functioning in the opposite way that you describe, to reinforce my belief in how deeply racist society was.
I think that, to the extent cultural racism exists in our country (and it does!), I still see it. But I've taken a more skeptical and critical view of those conclusive studies, of social justice, of "white privilege," etc. as well.
Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts, and I think they are often not the best explanations. Because "social justice" is mostly just a tribal subculture designed to give people a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. And because, well, I already bitched about how I see "white privilege" used.
Dan when your riding the subway, and you see black people, do you sit right next to them or do you try to take a seat further away? Or stand?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere.
They are indeed conclusive. So I'm curious: what anecdotal evidence caused you to stop believing in the conclusive work of generations of social scientists?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What it comes down to for me is, as I've said before, how strange and hugely unlikely the idea is that a society with cultural, legal, religious, political, and economic open racism for centuries can be thought to have overcome those problems in literally less than a tenth of the number of generations than those problems were, setting aside non-overt/on the books problems, in place.
If we were reading about a social problem of similar duration and power in a different society long in the past, few indeed would credit the majority's leaders in history books claiming the problem had been largely dealt with so quickly. Most people would (rightly) regard such a thing with skepticism.
I suppose it ties into American exceptionalism, though. We're just that good. Two or three generations since we addressed (much) of the on-the-books racism in our country, and the claim that it still persists in subtle cultural ways is just a fallacy...even though, y'know, just all racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups except 'white Christian male' are still hugely underrepresented in the upper tiers of the private sector and of government. White privilege is just a fallacy. We're just...I don't know, lucky or something.
Dude, seriously, roll back some of the sarcasm and hostility. It's totally unnecessary, you're not going to get a rise out of me, and it takes longer to find the points in your posts.
There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
But anyway, setting aside the abstract "it's super unlikely that we could have solved racism" argument, I actually agree with you insofar as racial inequity hasn't been fully resolved. Not by a long shot. It strikes me as weird that you keep ascribing attitudes to me that I never expressed, but whatever.
Where I disagree with you is in the idea that the primary reason for this inequity is due to pervasive, hidden racist attitudes in the overwhelming majority of the population. That's a possibility, of course, but it doesn't strike me as the best explanation.
Explanations that acknowledge the power of formative memes... two examples being education and racial/geographical subcultures (which alone encompass lots of disparate factors)... seem better.
Blayne: What's the point of that question?
If I say I don't avoid sitting next to black people, the infinitely variable "white privilege" meme has plenty of potential responses to invalidate what I say: Maybe I only think I don't avoid sitting next to black people due to confirmation bias. Or maybe I actively choose to sit next to them to prove to myself how not racist I am even though I continue being racist in a thousand other hidden ways.
Or whatever. I'm not as good at this as some people, maybe Sam or Mucus or Rakeesh can tell me what my subway sitting habits really mean.
If you really care, though: I tend go for a window seat with nobody next to it. If I have to sit next to somebody, I sit next to the skinniest person I can spot with a cursory look. I live in the Bay Area and for three years I took the BART subway train into San Francisco. Pretty sure that if I had a problem sitting next to black people the subway would've been torture, instead of a great chance to catch an extra half hour of sleep on my way to work.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I spent a good portion of my life believing those studies (after all, they're "conclusive!") and seeing examples of white privilege everywhere.
They are indeed conclusive. So I'm curious: what anecdotal evidence caused you to stop believing in the conclusive work of generations of social scientists?
None. I've just seen explanations for why a lot of social science is less science and more scientism. We've talked about this before, though, haven't we?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not this specific example. So, question: have you just decided to reject all social science, or do you know something specific about the studies of white privilege -- or, indeed, the concept of social privilege at all -- that would lead you to believe it is not indeed a widespread phenomenon?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
Errr...such as? What other problem on a social and government level did you have in mind?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, again, I've described how I've seen "white privilege" used... but then Sam and others have also used it to mean nothing more than "any social advantage conferred by being white," which is broad enough that I don't object to it the way I object to the version of "white privilege" that I described a page or two ago.
As far as it goes, what I reject about the social science on this issue is the idea that the best explanation for the disparities is a pervasive universal (universal for Americans anyway) unconscious prejudice against black people.
Human motivations are more complicated than that.
And there are other factors like education that get obfuscated here. Education, of course, is interesting, because it still reveals some serious racial inequities and some really bad racially biased cultural memes. Again, I'm not saying those don't exist, at all.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There's no special reason that any particular problem should take a long time to solve. Plenty of problems have persisted for thousands of years and then been solved in a single generation.
Errr...such as? What other problem on a social and government level did you have in mind?
Well, I wasn't specifically thinking of social/government problems. But sure. Human sacrifice? Republican government? Progress can happen very quickly, when there is a catalyst for change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, human sacrifice. Which cultures were you thinking of that had it as a feature for centuries, and moved away from it inside a generation or two?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, using the Aztecs may be a bit of a cheat, since most of their culture was also eradicated in the process, but it certainly happened quick. Better examples might be the Tibetans, the Pawnee, many groups in Africa...
Often there were small holdover groups that resisted change, which isn't remotely contradictory to anything I've said. I freely admit there are holdover groups that are blatantly racist!
But by and large, when a major cultural shift occurred in these places (a shift towards a culture where human sacrifice was no longer acceptable), the practice died out quickly among the population.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Dan, if what % of American disparity would you agree is caused by racism, institutional or otherwise? 1%? 5%? Would you agree that at least 10 to 15% is caused by it as a systemic issue within American society?
If we can agree that it is 15%, why is that not worth investing in social programs to alleviate at least that 15% we have a clear cut solution to, a clear cut problem?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
Starting to think that your idea of the "conclusions of the studies" is as hazy and really wholly incorrect in the sociological field as your idea of psychological studies is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Looking at the Pawnee, I'm reading about child sacrifice in the early 19th century. Is that what you're referring to? As for Tibet, I find talk of it largely ending in the 7th century due to the arrival of Buddhism-is that what you're referring to?
Now, if I'm right about the first example, that is I correctly noticed what you meant...it's a terrible, inapplicable example. The Pawnee culture was already at that time in the process of being all but wiped out, and they were being explicitly advised by Indian Agents that they needed to stop, with the obvious threat implicit. Which would leave us with Tibet, which I haven't dug into yet. But it would seem that what was necessary there was an enormous religious revolution, if it was as decisive as you claim.
We're left with a few huge problems with your 'we have generally overcome racism in a couple of generations' theory, though. Aside from the fact that human sacrifice is a much more obvious, clear cut practice and thus easier to stop (or start). One, unless you're going to claim that the advent of the Civil Rights Movement actually changed the hearts and minds of serious, committee racists (I do hope you won't), then they were still being elected to office and holding high end private sector jobs...but it was no longer legal to openly, explicitly practice racism. So of course they therefore decided it was time to just be non racist even when they could get away with it, or something.
Another of the (many) problems would be that if you actually ask the people *that would notice*, that is actual minorities, well then racism is certainly not just a few old holdouts. White privilege isn't a fallacy. For this opinion we can look at actual representation in politics, government, media, academia, etc, and find a substantial underrepresentation across the boards for all minorities.
So if racism and white privilege had actually been nixed to the extent you say, wouldn't we be able to *tell* in a way other than just polling white people?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would probably criticize some of the studies about unconsciuos racial bias in the same way as Dan. For example, I don't think the face reaction studies indicate what they're supposed to show about implicit bias. They probably do show that unconscious, reflexive aversive reactions to black people's faces are common, but it's a huge leap of logic from this to the claim that these reactions do much to affect important aspects of people's behavior toward black people. However uncool it is, avoiding sitting next to black men on the train doesn't by itself hurt anyone very much.
The place where I do think good evidence of implicit bias can be found is in these resume studies. Unfortunately, it's much harder to design the studies to measure racial bias, but they do show that the same resume gets a much fairer hearing with a man's name on top than with a woman's name on top. So that's very strong evidence for what we might label "male privilege" that likely has a serious negative effect on women's careers. Now, it would surprise me if typical people have such robust implicit biases against women and not against black people, since it's probably fair to say that black people are historically more stigmatized than women in the US.
As Dan pointed out in this a previous thread about this, the comparable studies that replace black-sounding names with white-sounding names have potential confounding factors. I think it's fair to say that the prevalence of morally significant implicit bias against women is empirically better established than it is against blacks, but that seems more likely to be because good evidence about the gender case is easier to gather, rather than because the racial bias doesn't exist in equal amounts (at least). It's just harder to measure directly.
[ October 07, 2012, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Because the conclusions of the studies are explanations couched as facts
You will have to show us what studies you are working on to come to this conclusion.
Starting to think that your idea of the "conclusions of the studies" is as hazy and really wholly incorrect in the sociological field as your idea of psychological studies is.
There's no particular study I had in mind, Sam, so if you're waiting for me to give you an example you'll be waiting a long time. It's a pretty broad error, though, so if there's a study you're particularly fond of, that you think proves me wrong, feel free to share it. Either I'll be persuaded or I'll offer some criticism of the study, which you can then be persuaded by or criticize. Win/Win!
---------
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Looking at the Pawnee, I'm reading about child sacrifice in the early 19th century. Is that what you're referring to? As for Tibet, I find talk of it largely ending in the 7th century due to the arrival of Buddhism-is that what you're referring to?
Now, if I'm right about the first example, that is I correctly noticed what you meant...it's a terrible, inapplicable example. The Pawnee culture was already at that time in the process of being all but wiped out, and they were being explicitly advised by Indian Agents that they needed to stop, with the obvious threat implicit. Which would leave us with Tibet, which I haven't dug into yet. But it would seem that what was necessary there was an enormous religious revolution, if it was as decisive as you claim.
Yeah I guess Pawnee was as sticky as Aztec, in hindsight. Their societies were static enough that the major transformations were resisted to the point of their entire cultures getting wiped out.
West Africa and Tibet are less controversial, I guess. As you indicated, for Tibet it was Buddhism. For West Africa it was Islam. In both cases these major cultural shifts also included disavowal of human sacrifice.
The fact that these cultures required a major transformative event isn't a flaw in my argument. It's a feature. That was my (poorly explained?) point. I think the civil rights movement served as that transformative event.
Our society is less static than the ancient Aztecs or the ancient Tibetans, so our transformation required more good ideas and less slaughter or religious trappings. That's a good thing! It's a mark in our favor.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We're left with a few huge problems with your 'we have generally overcome racism in a couple of generations' theory, though. Aside from the fact that human sacrifice is a much more obvious, clear cut practice and thus easier to stop (or start). One, unless you're going to claim that the advent of the Civil Rights Movement actually changed the hearts and minds of serious, committee racists (I do hope you won't), then they were still being elected to office and holding high end private sector jobs...but it was no longer legal to openly, explicitly practice racism. So of course they therefore decided it was time to just be non racist even when they could get away with it, or something.
There's that sarcasm again.
Certainly, the civil rights movement was a major transformative event. It changed the minds of some hardcore racists, of course (Isn't Robert Byrd a favorite example?) But not all of them. Many more just saw the way the wind was blowing and began changing their outward behavior when necessary.
It's grown more and more necessary over time. After all, the older generations are dying. And our society is dynamic enough, and sufficiently good at thinking, that particularly terrible ideas are able to fall away and be replaced by less-bad ideas.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Another of the (many) problems would be that if you actually ask the people *that would notice*, that is actual minorities, well then racism is certainly not just a few old holdouts. White privilege isn't a fallacy. For this opinion we can look at actual representation in politics, government, media, academia, etc, and find a substantial underrepresentation across the boards for all minorities.
So if racism and white privilege had actually been nixed to the extent you say, wouldn't we be able to *tell* in a way other than just polling white people?
Well then it's a good thing I don't suggest we poll white people! Whew! Dodged that bullet.
Polling black people isn't really any better, of course, since they're just as likely to inaccurately remember or understand as anyone else. Self-reporting isn't really reliable at the best of times.
Yeah, there are underrepresentations, though. For sure! I've never denied that... I don't think. Have I? If I did, I recant my previous foolish statement.
-------------------
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The place where I do think good evidence of implicit bias can be found is in these resume studies. Unfortunately, it's much harder to design the studies to measure racial bias, but they do show that the same resume gets a much fairer hearing with a man's name on top than with a woman's name on top. So that's very strong evidence for what we might label "male privilege" that likely has a serious negative effect on women's careers. Now, it would surprise me if typical people have such robust implicit biases against women and not against black people, since it's probably fair to say that black people are historically more stigmatized than women in the US.
Yeah, that's interesting! It's a tiny study, but I'm glad you shared it. Not totally surprising, sadly. Girls can't do math and science, after all. I know the tech industry also has some common sexist memes running through it, in much the same way.
Of course, the dearth of women scientists is way bigger than the margins of that study. The girls can't do math/science meme is, I think more complicated than just "so we don't hire them as much." That's not the whole story. Still, it's undoubtedly lousy!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A better example might be Chinese footbinding of women; but these are practices and not values.
Example, Japan: Equal rights for Women such as the right to vote were imposed on Japan by MacArthur and his version of the constitution based on the American constitution that he wrote for Japan; interesting to note it gave the right to vote to Japanese citizens in ways that were not yet available to American citizens.
However 50 years later and Japan, while a modern representative democracy that shares many of our values is still very much a "rape culture" and many social values regarding social equality between men and women are lagging 50 years behind America.
So merely "on the books" racism or inequality, being removed through legislative means doesn't however we can clearly see solve the institutional inequalities that still lag. America is no more exception than Japan, it is in of itself racist to presume America solved these issues when Japan didn't when there is so much evidence that it has not been done.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, in other news...
The post-debate polling has shown a significant bounce for Romney. The national polling average from the week before the debate (appr. 20 polls) was Obama +3.85. The polling average in the week since the debate (appr. 11 polls) is Romney +0.82, or roughly a 4.5 point swing. Nate Silver sees some receding of the bounce in the new Rasmussen and Gallup polls, but at the moment the race seems to have reverted to approximately a tie, at least with respect to the national average. Swing state polls have shown similar movement toward Romney, but there haven't been enough to say anything very interesting. Silver's model has moved from giving Romney a 13% chance of winning the election to giving him a 25% chance. InTrade has gone from giving Romney a 20% chance to giving him a 40% chance.
In non-polling news, the President's campaign released a quirky ad making fun of Romney's line about liking Big Bird but not enough to borrow money from China to fund the CPB. The script from the ad:
quote:Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed. And the evil genius who towered over them? One man has the guts to speak his name. Big Bird.
Later, it echos a line Obama has added to his stump speech, "Mitt Romney knows it's not Wall Street you have to worry about, it's Sesame Street." The Sesame Workshop has asked the Obama campaign to remove the ad, since the Workshop is non-partisan and doesn't endorse candidates, but the campaign has not yet chosen to do so. So, for now at least, you can see the ad here.
(h/t Dave Weigel)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A tie?
Oh. Yeah, in respect to the national average.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A tie?
Oh. Yeah, in respect to the national average.
Well, I guess more accurate would be to say Romney currently holds a narrow lead in the national average, rather than calling it a tie.
Seriously though, swing states are where the election is won or lost, and while they are susceptible to national swings, they obviously don't perfectly correlate. That said, post-debate polls have been released showing Romney ahead or tied in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada, as well as trailing by low single-digits in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (with the obvious caveat that single polls are hardly definitive, and in some cases, like Virginia, competing polls have shown Obama with a narrow lead).
<edit>A new poll from IBD/TIPP just came in with a Romney +2.0, making the post-debate average among all pollsters Romney +1.0.</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
alienated ?????? impossible
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Hate to say "I told you so" to my fellow Obama supporters in this thread (no seriously, I'd much rather be eating these words), but... I told you so. Stop assuming we've got this in the bag. This election is going to be close.
Obama's holding a tenuous lead in the Electoral College math right now, but the national polls are as tied as you can really be. If the current momentum in the daily trackers continues over the next few days, you could even argue that Romney has a slim lead.
I suspect the next two debates (VP and town hall) may be pretty decisive in this election. Obama and Biden have a chance to stop the bleeding and even swing the momentum back their way. On the other hand, Romney and Ryan have an equal shot at really dealing the hammer blow and pushing strongly ahead for the first time. Given that the debates are really the last "major" scheduled news before Election Day (short of a hugely surprisingly November jobs report in either direction), it would be tough for either candidate to significantly reverse the trendline once we're through them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote: Here is one of those odd regularities that crop up in American politics: Every election year since at least 1996, about a quarter of gay voters (more precisely, of voters who acknowledge being gay in exit polls) have pulled for the Republican presidential candidate, rain or shine.
I just... it always strikes me as odd when people act like this is odd.
The arrogance of guys like that surprises me too. As if it's completely absurd that maybe some gay people wouldn't be single-issue voters, and vote for someone who isn't good on gay rights because they feel strongly about X, Y, and Z other issues.
Some gay people think that there are more important concerns in choosing the president than marriage laws. Crazy, right?
In fact, I'd be willing to bet a lot of gay people feel that way... it's just that the non-Republican gay people don't need to clarify what issues they care most about, because they also happen to be voting for someone seen as (slightly) more gay-friendly.
Just to be sure we don't go down a tangent of whether these political opinions are good or not, I'll put it in epithets you can understand: Imagine a person who is hugely islamophobic, has an irrational hatred of Keynesian economics, is a zombie cultist of Ayn Rand, hates poor people, hates good health care, and is an evil billionaire corporate fat cat. They also happen to be gay.
Now imagine: Who do you think such a person might vote for?
It really rubs me the wrong way when people paint this situation as some sort of totally bizarre phenomenon.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed. Especially when you only have two parties, this kind of "error" is going to be common.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
538 last I checked was 75% chance for Obama to win, that's not really tied at all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 538 last I checked was 75% chance for Obama to win, that's not really tied at all.
I mentioned that in my first post, if you read closely.
Silver's model is skeptical of abrupt, bounce-like polling changes (which is appropriate; bounces, by nature, tend to fade) and so doesn't really believe Romney is permanently ahead. It also models the complex interaction between state-level and national-level polling, and there is insufficient state-level polling to really move that aspect of the model much. Between these two factors, it's not surprising that Silver's model has only doubled Romney's chances of winning since the debate, rather than moving him into parity with Obama.
<edit>I just clicked over to 538, and Romney's probability of winning moved from 25% to 29% after today's polls were incorporated into the model. That's the highest it's been since Aug. 29 which was the middle of the GOP convention.<edit>
[ October 09, 2012, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And it could easily swing right back the other way depending on how the next debates go. Not many people watch the VP debate, but there's still the town hall and foreign policy.
The interesting thing is that early voting has already started in a lot of places. Now is the most important time Romney could have possibly made a comeback.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Right so why does Romney chances should be on par with Obama's then?
It's not unreasonable to think it odd, since GOP (and Democrat, to be fair) historic and current...apathy or antagonism towards homosexuality, not just gay rights, has been considerably more pronounced than 'marriage law'.
It's not just marriage law. Republicans overall have a tendancy to be more repressive towards homosexuals than Democrats do, in some cases by a wide margin. Thus, a bit surprising, but the explanations are there-and are often 'this is the best long-term way', btw.
What's more interesting to me is how common it is to see irritability or outrage over the idea that homosexuals might trend more Democratic. As though to deny the higher repressiveness and disdain the GOP offers them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's not unreasonable to think it odd, since GOP (and Democrat, to be fair) historic and current...apathy or antagonism towards homosexuality, not just gay rights, has been considerably more pronounced than 'marriage law'.
It's not just marriage law. Republicans overall have a tendancy to be more repressive towards homosexuals than Democrats do, in some cases by a wide margin. Thus, a bit surprising, but the explanations are there-and are often 'this is the best long-term way', btw.
What's more interesting to me is how common it is to see irritability or outrage over the idea that homosexuals might trend more Democratic. As though to deny the higher repressiveness and disdain the GOP offers them.
In case it wasn't clear, I'm not irritated by the idea that homosexuals trend democrat. That's just a fact, and it'd be silly to get upset over it. There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
I just object when people act like the fact that a significant minority of gay people trend republican is some sort of wildly unexpected and inexplicable oddity.
It's not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Dan's hypothetical about Peter Thiel is a good one. Where would a Randian homosexual go? There are elements within the Democratic party whose antipathy toward greedy businessmen manifests itself as loathing and demonization; in fact, I'd say it's been the party line for the last two years. So when both parties loath and demonize you, but you want to vote (and not for a third-party), what should you do?
The truth that Dan was trying to get to, and one that I see repeatedly missed by partisans on both sides but particularly on the Democratic side, is that people are complex. We contain multitudes. Poor Kansas Evangelical Republicans vote against their economic interest to vote for their social interest, as do wealthy Connecticut hedge fund managers. Peter Thiel votes against some of his social interests, as do most middle-class, religious blacks and Hispanics. Foreign policy interests led new-atheists like Chris Hitchins and neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz to support Bush, despite their loathing of Bush's religious ideals, and anti-war fervor brought together Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
The idea that any single slice of our demography ought to be dispositive in determining our voting habits strikes me as significantly simplistic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The thing that I find odd is the way people (like Kansan Evangelicals) can convince themselves that they aren't actually voting against any of their interests. They should just own up to it. As I do when I vote Democrat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
I'm not getting the distinction. Also, I'm sticking to Utah Mormons.
Regardless of how strongly Utah Mormons demonize group X. The evangelical wing of the Republican party for years has demonized group X and Mormons.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The thing that I find odd is the way people (like Kansan Evangelicals) can convince themselves that they aren't actually voting against any of their interests. They should just own up to it. As I do when I vote Democrat.
True. More disheartening, to me, is the way in which voters' individual ideologies seem to be increasingly dictated by party lines rather than personal preferences. Parties aren't meant to be, nor can they realistically be, ideologically coherent. To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald). However, there's evidence that increasingly people are taking their ideological positions not from either their innate preferences, or even exogenously from some narrow special interest group or faith community, but from the national parties themselves. To me, a system in which ideology is generated not by philosophy or morality but by party dynamics seems disturbingly ungrounded, and susceptible to all sorts of perverse effects.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "I am willing to support these people who loathe and demonize me because I really hate income tax."
Utah Mormons have been saying that for years, and nobody raises any eyebrows.
Isn't that more because those people loathe and demonize, along with Mormons, the same people the Mormons do?
I'm not getting the distinction. Also, I'm sticking to Utah Mormons.
Regardless of how strongly Utah Mormons demonize group X. The evangelical wing of the Republican party for years has demonized group X and Mormons.
My point was this alliance wasn't due to income tax, but shared loathing of other groups.
I think there's a big difference between something like the income tax thing and allying with people who are bigoted against you because you share their other bigotries.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't see how there's a massive pull when it comes to demonizing a group of people, as opposed to a policy that by extension is espoused by a group of people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald).
While I agree with your broader point, Greenwald is a bit of an outlier on that list. These days, he seems to despise the Democrats--precisely because they've compromised on issues that he feels he cannot compromise on, morally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Obviously I am very proud of being able to use quotes on my phone. But it's in quotes because it is "framing that completely misses the reality of an issue," especially given where both sides have consistently been over the decades-long struggle to overturn anti-sodomy laws state by state — you might as well tell women needing an abortion that republicans only have a "slightly worse record" in terms of abortion rights. It makes two extremely-not-the-same-at-all effective positions seem about the same, at a point where they differ greatly and are only widening.
To go back to your first response to me: I agree with much of it. I am not going to find it odd that people aren't single issue anything much of the time. This is about the log cabin republicans as an organization rolling with the persistently homophobic dysfunction of their party until they can pretty much take no more in terms of signing on with Romney.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are lots of plausible reasons for it, not the least being the slightly better record on gay rights.
"slightly better record"
Right.
Are those scare quotes because you disagree, or are you just showing us that you figured out how to do quotes on your phone, or what?
Obviously I am very proud of being able to use quotes on my phone.
Well, I can't fault you for that. I finally bit the bullet and got one of these newfangled phones myself, and I have to admit, it's pretty handy.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But it's in quotes because it is "framing that completely misses the reality of an issue," especially given where both sides have consistently been over the decades-long struggle to overturn anti-sodomy laws state by state — you might as well tell women needing an abortion that republicans only have a "slightly worse record" in terms of abortion rights. It makes two extremely-not-the-same-at-all effective positions seem about the same, at a point where they differ greatly and are only widening.
I think the Democratic party has been much more consistently pro-abortion than pro-gay rights.
That being said, when we look at the level of state legislature (sodomy laws, gay marriage bans, etc.) I see your point. The difference is more significant in that sphere. More due to bad behavior by Republicans than to good behavior by Democrats, but even so, your correction is noted. "Slightly better" was a bad way to phrase it.
When I said it, I was thinking in the context of electing the president. And when it comes to presidential acts, the gay rights progress made by Democratic presidents has been extremely slight, and the damage done by Republican presidents has been similarly slim.
Unless I'm forgetting some major issue or something, which is possible.
PS: I'm glad you recognized the main point I was trying to make, though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:To attract sufficient numbers of members, national parties must necessarily compromise ideology on several points. That's why you have a Republican party with Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and Susan Collins (or a Democratic party with Joe Manchin, Elizabeth Warren, and Glenn Greenwald).
While I agree with your broader point, Greenwald is a bit of an outlier on that list. These days, he seems to despise the Democrats--precisely because they've compromised on issues that he feels he cannot compromise on, morally.
I'll admit that I haven't followed Greenwald closely in a couple of years. I was just casting about for a prominent example of a Democratic voice with libertarian sympathies and he was the first who came to mind. That said, I'm having a hard time coming up with a good surrogate. Does Reddit have a favorite Democrat? Someone who has been in active opposition of SOPA and PIPA, is in favor of drug legalization, and calls out the President for his drone-based foreign policy? There's gotta be someone like that. Markos Moulitsas, maybe?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Back to the actual election, 538 puts Romney's chances of winning the popular vote at 33% today, higher than it has been at any time since Silver first introduced his 2012 model. Romney's advantage in the post-debate national polls of likely voters remains unchanged at 1.0 after several polls released today showed him with a slight lead. He has been tied or leading in every national poll of likely voters released since the debate.
Suffolk University's David Paleologos, a well-known pollster, reports that his outfit is pulling out of Florida, N. Carolina and Virginia, saying "we've already painted those states red." Much as I wish a Romney win in those states were a foregone conclusion, Paleologos' rationale is essentially that undecideds break toward the challenger, a bit of campaign folklore that appears to beunsupported by the data.
Posted by shakes (Member # 12903) on :
Wow, stumbled across this conversation. Have any of you guys talking about "white privilege" actually worked in the real world?
I'm sorry, but the most racist thing that exists in the country today is affirmative action. How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota.....there are certainly some that are qualified, but there are many who get hired because they fill a number and not the best person for the job. That's racism.
I just laugh at all the gibbldegook I see posted by some of you on here. You live in some fantasy land.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What business are you a part of Shakes? Which State?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
I think you're setting yourself up to hear a made up number which you have no way of disputing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by shakes: Wow, stumbled across this conversation. Have any of you guys talking about "white privilege" actually worked in the real world?
No, we're all shut-in poors who have never worked a day in our lives, and we're also all the fabled "welfare queens"
yeap you sure caught us out
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
...The AI would have emerged years sooner had it not spent so much time trying to determine the difference between the analog world and the "real world" that humans kept referring to...
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota
I too would like to get a number on this.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Romney's advantage in the post-debate national polls of likely voters remains unchanged at 1.0 after several polls released today showed him with a slight lead. He has been tied or leading in every national poll of likely voters released since the debate.
Romney's streak came to an end this morning when Rasmussen (!) released a national poll where he trailed Obama by a point.
In other morning polling news, Obama got a few strong swing state polls today out of Ohio (O+6), Virginia (O+5) and Nevada (O+4). Other polls out of Wisconsin (O+3), Florida (O+1), Virginia (R+1) and Colorado (R+1) suggest the electoral race has tightened significantly since the debate.
<edit>On a slight digression, I just want to point out an annoyance I have with standard polling methodology. This morning, two separate polls of Virginia were released, with a six point difference in the polls' findings. Both polls' results are significantly outside the stated margin of error of the other. One would expect this to happen very infrequently, but in fact it happens all the time, which is why poll aggregation models like Nate Silver's are so necessary for understanding the true state of the race.
My annoyance isn't that different polls find different things; that's to be expected. Rather, it's that they rely on, in my opinion, bad methodology for determining their margins of error, significantly overstating the certainty of their findings. /end digression</edit>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm right now waffling about going back long on obama and I don't know if i'll short romney again. I'm still pretty sure Obama is going to win but we stepped out of the "sure thing" category and I don't like being anxious about betting on stuff aaaaah.
IN OTHER NEWS
quote:'Mr. Romney figures he can win by simply erasing the Primary Campaign Romney and introducing a new, shinier, kinder and gentler General Election Romney. It’s breathtakingly cynical and suggests total contempt for voters.'
Yeah, well, it works, dunnit? Of course it suggests total contempt of voters. We're contemptible.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How many unqualified minorities have you had to hire because you had to meet a quota, shakes?
Pretty sure affirmative action doesn't entail hiring people who are unqualified. Pretty sure. Like 100%
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by shakes: I'm sorry, but the most racist thing that exists in the country today is affirmative action. How many unqualified minorities have I had to hire because I have to meet a quota.....there are certainly some that are qualified, but there are many who get hired because they fill a number and not the best person for the job. That's racism.
I just laugh at all the gibbldegook I see posted by some of you on here. You live in some fantasy land.
Just gonna requote this
if this is a real person who is actually not lying about being involved with hiring minorities then its amazing that he has decided that there's an affirmative action quota and just uses that perception to go on because, you know, he understands things and us poors don't
oh who am i kidding this is an obvious troll, it actually said that affirmative action was the most racist thing in the country
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: IN OTHER NEWS
quote:'Mr. Romney figures he can win by simply erasing the Primary Campaign Romney and introducing a new, shinier, kinder and gentler General Election Romney. It’s breathtakingly cynical and suggests total contempt for voters.'
Yeah, well, it works, dunnit? Of course it suggests total contempt of voters. We're contemptible.
Here comes that Etch-a-Sketch.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm right now waffling about going back long on obama and I don't know if i'll short romney again. I'm still pretty sure Obama is going to win but we stepped out of the "sure thing" category and I don't like being anxious about betting on stuff aaaaah.
There are still a lot of good sure-thing bets on the state electoral votes. Unless you think Michigan or Pennsylvania have a 20+% chance of going to Romney...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, Vice President Biden is certainly speaking up!
And I am especially pleased to see Congressman Ryan being reminded of his votes in the House.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Yeah. I;m really proud of Biden. I was afraid that going into the debate, Ryan would outclass Biden in speaking skills. But Biden seems to be on the attack. He is agressively calling out the descrepancies in Ryan and Romney's plan, Good for him!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I liked him going for the throat on foreign policy. While I'm far from happy with quite a lot of American (not just Obama's, really as long as I've been alive and aware really, but right now it's his) foreign policy, but it was nice to see him bluntly calling Ryan out and belaboring just how NOT different the Romney 'plan' is, aside from 'more military' and 'don't outsource to the UN'. Without ratcheting up US material involvement, how ELSE would Ryan go about it?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Biden showed incredibly poor form throughout the entire debate. His mocking laughs and sneers were very undignified. I've never believed him to be the caliber of person who should hold a position of leadership (let alone one as high as vice president) but tonight his character really shined through.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, capaxinfiniti, if you were interested in at least appearing (much less actually BEING) someone who at least made a head fake towards objectivity...rather than 'he was mean, and that shows poor character, and that indicates he shouldn't be a leader'. Shall we roll back the pages of the calendar to the primaries and talk about mean behavior? Anyway, as a counterpoint, there are plenty of people who are like myself very likely to vote Obama in a month, but who will also freely admit 'Romney had a solid and even a decisive debate victory', even when taking issue with how he did it.
Ryan's a tough guy. If he can't hold his bladder at an old man being 'mean', well the kitchen door is easily accessible and the sooner he uses it the better. But of course he won that debate in your eyes well before it ever took place.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Because I didn't wish to say more doesn't mean I couldn't. It was an observation. My comment didn't even rise to the level of an argument. If you feel my comment can be summarized as "Biden was a meanie" then you have much to learn about interpersonal communication as well as the influences of public perception.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe you could say more against Biden (that anyone could read in a given GOP mailer), but you complained that he was too mean using fancier language and that it reflected badly on his character.
Poor Ryan. He's ill prepared for that mean!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
Romney didn't interrupt his opponent the way Biden did, and he definitely was not condescending the way Biden was, with his smirking and referring to Ryan as "my friend".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, no, no. When Romney interrupts or talks over his opponent and the moderator he's forceful, alpha male and presidential. When Biden does it he's rude. Keep it straight.
The difference is that, to my recollection, Romney seldom interrupted his opponent, although there were occasional moments of cross-talk. He did frequently talk over the moderator, but I think that is a relatively minor breach of debate etiquette, particularly when the moderator himself has since said he wanted to give the candidates freedom and leeway in their responses. If both candidates do this, you get a meandering, undirected debate, but still a debate.
Biden on the other hand refused to let Ryan speak at several points throughout the debate, steamrolling him to the point where any assertion Ryan made was immediately rebutted with no accommodation of normal debate civility. If both candidates do this you no longer have a debate you have a shouting match.
That said, I don't think the push back of "Biden laughed too much" or "Biden was condescending" or "Biden interrupted repeatedly" is very interesting. He did, and he was, and the debate was less than it could have been because of it. But in the end I think both sides did a good job of articulating their positions. Snap polls post-debate show that viewers' opinions were about even (in two of three, Ryan was deemed to have won narrowly; in one Biden was seen to have won comfortably) which suggests that both sides were able to do what they needed.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
When the media says Romney did well, it means he "kicked ass".
When the media, using the same freaking focus group they did for the first debate, says Biden won, it's all a liberal conspiracy.
Biden was at 50%, Ryan at 39%, the rest thought it was even.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If your opponent is openly lying, how should one react in a debate?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If your opponent is openly lying, how should one react in a debate?
I think, for instance, Romney's approach to Obama's continued insistence that he had proposed a $5T tax cut* was appropriate. To my recollection, Romney didn't interrupt Obama at any of the several points when he made the assertion; rather, he waited until Obama finished and then rebutted it.
Compare that to this transcript of Joe Biden talking over Paul Ryan during the Medicare discussion:
quote:REP. RYAN: Here’s the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning Medicare into a piggy bank for “Obamacare”. Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That’s not what they said.
REP. RYAN: Seven point four million seniors are projected to lose the current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: That didn’t happen.
REP. RYAN: What we’re saying --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More people signed up.
REP. RYAN: These are from your own actuaries.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: More -- more -- more people signed up for Medicare Advantage after the change.
REP. RYAN: What -- what they’re --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No -- nobody is getting shut down.
REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know --
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: No -- no -- (inaudible) --
REP. RYAN: Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress -- (laughter) -- to make up for lost ground -- (laughter) -- but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, don’t take all the four minutes, then.
If Romney had done this to Obama every time he tried to make a claim Romney wanted to dispute (or vice versa), the debate would have quickly devolved into bickering. Which is, to some extent, what happened last night.
*Whether this is a lie or not is obviously a point of contention; personally I think Obama was closer to the truth in this case than Romney was, but Romney obviously felt it was a misrepresentation of his plan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I felt the debate was actually a debate when its more like a conversation; ala the Stewart-O'Reilly debate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I felt the debate was actually a debate when its more like a conversation; ala the Stewart-O'Reilly debate.
In conversation we generally take turns speaking. It's actually kind of what allows us to converse.
I really don't want to make a big deal out of this, though. Like I said, it was impolite, but so what. That's life. Move on. Republicans who will spend the day trying to spin a 'bully' angle on Biden are wasting their time making a point that is irrelevant to the broader question of who we should elect.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I listened to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh and he was complaining that "Joey was his crazy self being all rude and grumpy." Rush Limbaugh was complaining that someone in politics should not be rude, that it is a bad thing. He said you shouldn't be rude in politics, but respectful. Mr. Ryan, he said, was respectful and polite.
I came back 45 minutes later after lunch and Mr. Limbaugh was proclaiming that all liberals and Democrats loved Twighlight--you can't be much more rude than that insult--and then he continued to complain that Vice President Biden is too rude.
My head hurts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I'd be surprised if he claimed he was never rude.
And I don't think him being rude is actually an argument against his idea that it's bad to be a rude politician.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: When the media says Romney did well, it means he "kicked ass".
When the media, using the same freaking focus group they did for the first debate, says Biden won, it's all a liberal conspiracy.
Biden was at 50%, Ryan at 39%, the rest thought it was even.
Just to reiterate something I said above, snap polls were mixed on whether Ryan or Biden won the debate.
CNBC*: Ryan (53%), Biden (41%) CNN/ORC: Ryan (48%), Biden (44%) CBS: Ryan (31%), Biden (50%)
In contrast, after the Presidential debate both snap polls agreed that the President had lost, and lost badly.
*I've seen some complaints on-line that the CNBC snap poll wasn't methodologically sound; I've also seen complaints that both CNN/ORC polls were demographically skewed. I haven't really evaluated those complaints, other than to register that they're out there. Also, this article lists several other 'snap polls' alongside those above, along with different numbers for the CNBC poll, but the three I pointed to are the ones I've seen repeatedly listed elsewhere. I don't know why The Examiner's numbers are different, or why they're reporting more snap polls, although the warning that the numbers could change because some of the polling is ongoing suggests that the polls are likely on-line opinion surveys, which are more susceptible to self-selection bias, as well as sock-puppetry.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
To give my take from my competitive debate background. Vice-President Biden won the debate, but it won't be a turning point for the broader election.
For the debate itself, I think Biden easily won on substance and on style it came out as largely a wash. For substance, let's be honest here. Most of the debate was on foreign policy. While Congressman Ryan didn't make himself look like a fool, the guy is an economic policy wonk. When you debate foreign policy with Mr. Biden, you're going to struggle. On the economic message I think Mr. Biden also had a distinct edge up until the closing minutes of the debate. Even though the question posed was "what would you say to a person who thinks this campaign is overly negative," Mr. Ryan's remark--while incredibly negative--was an uncontested flood of economic claims. In the end, substance wise, I give it to Mr. Biden.
For style, Mr. Biden took a risky gamble, and I think it ended up being a wash. Mr. Biden, like Governor Romney, went for an aggressive stance. When a debater does this, they're trying to force you to debate on their terms. It's easier to beat your opponent when you have them playing the game by your rules. The way to beat someone as aggressive as Mr. Romney or Biden is to be calm, collected, and confident. To the President's credit in his debate against Mr. Romney, he did read the debate properly and tried to remain cool and collected, but his presentation wasn't confident. He wouldn't keep eye-contact with Mr. Romney, he stumbled on his words, and he seemed flustered. By not seeming confident against a person exuding confidence, it paints the image of defeat.
Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, tried to play it in both worlds. At some points of the debate, he was calm and collected. The reason this strategy works is because it creates a contrast between the two. If you don't seem flustered, the aggressive person comes off as petulant and immature. It seems like they resort to aggression to compensate for a lack of substance. As my coach told me years ago, the more angry your opponent becomes, the calmer you become.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ryan, he did bite back with his own aggression from time to time. When you are also aggressive, you can't maintain the narrative of complete cool. I don't care if the Vice-President started it, when you interrupt to point out Mr. Biden's gaffes or to contest claims against your Medicare plan, you've become guilty of "rudeness" as well. You played the game that Mr. Biden wanted you to play, and he beat you at it.
I say it ends up a wash though because, for the most part, Mr. Ryan did remain calm. Enough that I think it's fair game to call Mr. Biden objectively more rude.
As for the broader political implications of Mr. Biden's debate performance, I think that at best he'll stop the hemorrhaging of support for the President. Those who were somewhat inclined to very inclined to support the President will be less likely to jump ship into the undecided camp. I don't think that the Vice-President will have changed the minds of any undecideds or leaning for Mr. Romney.
That being said, had Mr. Ryan won the debate, it would have cemented the narrative that Mr. Obama's campaign has fallen apart and I think that the trend of support for Mr. Romney would have continued unabated.
Either way, Mr. Romney's trend of support means that the ball in in the President's court now. If he wants to turn things around and get people to return to his camp, he needs to blow the roof off of the townhall. My suggestion? Stop using Senator Kerry as your stand in for Mr. Romney and get the Vice President in that role. The President needs to seem confident under pressure. He doesn't need to become more aggressive to win the debate, he just needs to make Mr. Romney's aggression look petulant.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I think Biden's technique was one that resonated with lots of younger people in his base. These were the people, I think, most disheartened by Obama's prior performance. So, I don't think he was trying to win over swing voters, I think he was trying to re-energize the base. And it worked. Ryan played along well enough to give Biden enough material to be legitimately exasperated about.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: I think it's great that most people who are dead-set against Obama can only say "Biden was a meanie!"
I'll take it.
Because I didn't wish to say more doesn't mean I couldn't. It was an observation. My comment didn't even rise to the level of an argument. If you feel my comment can be summarized as "Biden was a meanie" then you have much to learn about interpersonal communication as well as the influences of public perception.
And now you're a meanie!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
I approve this message.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can all enjoy the ballad of Big Joe Biden.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In what can only be described as an unsolvable mystery, people are determining who won the debate largely based on their political affiliation!
I approve this message.
Plus a million.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ryan's a tough guy. If he can't hold his bladder at an old man being 'mean', well the kitchen door is easily accessible and the sooner he uses it the better. But of course he won that debate in your eyes well before it ever took place.
quote:I believe you could say more against Biden (that anyone could read in a given GOP mailer), but you complained that he was too mean using fancier language and that it reflected badly on his character.
Poor Ryan. He's ill prepared for that mean!
I didn't say anything about Ryan or how well he handled Biden's disrespectful (and, frankly, childish) behavior and I certainly didn't decide who won the debate before it happened. You're pinning an argument and assertions on me that I didn't make and/or you threw up a straw man just so you could get off a few pithy comments. But whatever. Your response was no surprise to me and others have already articulated why my observation was relevant so I feel no need to belabor the issue.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And why should you? Your comments speak for themselves. They don't say anything. But by God, they speak for themselves.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
let me bet a million internet dollars that capax thinks that biden lied more and that ryan was mostly truthful
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Biden wasn't performing for the masses. He was performing for the base. And based on that, he blew it out of the water.
After Obama's performance, where the liberal reaction was "why didn't he say __________!?" Biden said everything single thing everyone wanted Obama to say. Now Obama can tone it down for the next two debates but still be aggressive. There's a way to call someone's BS without being a dick about it. It lies in the middle of Obama's first performance and Biden's.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Samp, I will see your million Internet dollars, on the grounds that you will never be able to prove that capax has independent thoughts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Samp, I will see your million Internet dollars, on the grounds that you will never be able to prove that capax has independent thoughts.
Wow. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hey it is entirely hypothetically possible he could take a nuanced comprehensive political position that wasn't just basically point by point regurgitation from redstate-level poliblogs. hypothetically
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we're terrible
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It won't take long for Fox News or someone similar to suggest that it was actually an Obama supporter just trying to gin up sympathy for his campaign.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Or a random vandal, or someone shooting at someone else, or... anything, really. Crazed disgruntled conservative is the best bet, but it's by no means a sure thing. Unless police catch the guy, it's sort of a non-starter. Let's just agree across the aisle that whoever did it was a bad person.
On that note, I respect the HQ representative for not politicizing the attack.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It won't take long for Fox News or someone similar to suggest that it was actually an Obama supporter just trying to gin up sympathy for his campaign.
Already happened.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
<this link does not work on dead old ubb so i removed it>
Billy Graham endorses Romney and scrubs his entire site, which previously was calling out mormonism as a dangerous cult, ho ho ho
[ October 13, 2012, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
okay, okay, i'm done having cold feet, I'm ahead so much already that i'm just gonna go back in on obama
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
The thing is, they've done it before. This exact thing happened four years ago, and that's exactly what they did.
There's nothing terrible about taking past events and using them to guess at what happens in the future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's pretty terrible to prophecy on what your opposition is going to do in response to something.
Is it possible, even likely? Yes. But both sides could play that game, and since we are already writing each other's scripts, why even both conversing?
Thank God nobody was hurt, I hope the police find the perpetrator.
The thing is, they've done it before. This exact thing happened four years ago, and that's exactly what they did.
There's nothing terrible about taking past events and using them to guess at what happens in the future.
Who is they? If you mean some conservatives talking heads, well sure. But if we want civil discourse we can't tell conservatives in essence, "Your lowest common denominator is pretty much all I pay attention to." or "You are inexorably tied to your past until you meet some arbitrary standard of good behavior for an arbitrary period of time.
There's always people whose key philosophy is "Never miss an opportunity to take advantage of tragedy."
It's Rush Limbaugh saying, "I hope he fails!" in regards to Obama. I'm sure in Limbaugh's world the only thing that would make him happy is if Obama had an affair, punched a baby in the face, or admitted to "hating white people."
Of course these same talking heads are not going to take this incident and say, "Conservatism can sometimes be taken too far, and really we should be moderate in our political opinions."
or
"Maybe there's something to this whole handguns being a bad idea liberal ideology."
Since 99% of talking heads are listened to because they don't admit to being wrong, they instead find any explanation that makes their position appear unassailable, and latch onto it tight.
But we don't do ourselves any favors, when we act like most conservatives honestly think an Obama camper fired a gun at the office, in the hopes of drumming up sympathy for Obama. Honestly, who is going to vote for Obama because they believe somebody shot at some of his staff?
Here's Fox News' take. It's pretty standard stuff. I was unable to find any conspiracy sites peddling your prediction.
I do know though that if the positions were switched, somebody fired a gun at Mitt Romney's headquarters in Florida, and a poster got on and said that MSNBC or some liberal rag is going to accuse the Romney camp of doing it because they wanted to drum up support in a battleground state, I'd be bugged.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Problem is, those conservative talking heads work for Fox News. I don't watch Fox News 24 hours a day, nor does a single brief blurb on their website speak for the entire network when they have a cadre of people who routinely say batshit crazy stuff, like last week when several Fox News hosts claimed the BLS cooked the books on unemployment numbers for Obama.
I'm still willing to bet that over the last couple days at least one Fox News commentator made that suggestions. If I'm wrong I'll apologize for the insinuation, but I'll be surprised.
And I never said most conservatives, or all conservatives. I specifically listed Fox News or someone similar, which is to say, conservative media outlets. That's far from painting the entire conservative section of the country with the same brush, but I'll cop to painting the conservative media with the same brush, and I have no qualms about that. The "they" in my second post specifically refers to my first one, which is to say, Fox News. They did this four years ago.
quote:Honestly, who is going to vote for Obama because they believe somebody shot at some of his staff?
Who is going to do ANY of the bizarre whackadoodle crap that Fox News suggests and claims on a regular basis?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And I never said most conservatives, or all conservatives. I specifically listed Fox News or someone similar, which is to say, conservative media outlets. That's far from painting the entire conservative section of the country with the same brush...
This is true, and I certainly misread your post when I posted. For that I apologize.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just being a boring pos and reminding people of this again.
I mean, it's important, and yet nobody voting for romney even wants to think about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have yet to hear an answer for Romney's apparently unworkable budget that didn't involve 'but Obama is worse' (which I dispute as accurate, but can't reject as a reason to vote against Obama if one feels that way), or didn't simply accept Romney's statement that he doesn't have to give details because that's how business works.
It's been a long campaign season. I don't expect there actually exists an answer that explains why Romney's budget is both good and honest. Now, on to the sarcasm: we should simply trust Romney's integrity and experience, on the basis of his business career in which he was quite successful. Because people who are successful in business are automatically both honest and wise in all fields.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
blahblah something obama lemonade stand blahblah
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's fairly strong evidence that Romney's debate bounce is fading, as increasingly national polls are returning to a slight edge for Obama. For instance, the ABC News/WaPo poll published today has him up three, the Ipsos/Reuters web poll has him up one, etc. Obama also got a strong swing state poll from PPP in Ohio, which showed him up five (although Silver's pollster rating for PPP says it has about a three point democratic lean, so it's probably more like an O+2).
Romney's chances have subsided slightly, but he got some good polls today in VA and IA from ARG, and PPP's polls of FL and NC suggest he's maintaining his current lead there as well.
It seems likely that the election will come down to a set of six states that current polling suggest are leaning slightly to Obama: OH, CO, NV, IA, NH, WI. If Romney wins any combination of three of those that doesn't include NH, and if current polling elsewhere holds, he'll win the election*. Or if he wins OH and any other state from the list, he'll also win the election.
*The combo CO-IA-NV results in an EV tie, in which case the winner would be chosen by the House with each state's delegation getting a single vote. This would almost certainly result in a Romney win. The Vice President, however, would be chosen by the Senate, with each Senator getting a single vote. Given the projected partisan make-ups of the two chambers, an electoral tie would very likely result in a Romney-Biden presidency.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
an EV tie with a significant Obama national popular vote win resulting in the house picking Romney would be
uh
no, goodbye, not hanging out for the riots
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm sorry, I can't see the math on that. What state combinations would you need for that tie? Is it even remotely in play?
ETA: ah, found the article. Doesn't seem likely.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It would finally let us kill the Electoral College though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Us, eh?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm an internationalist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Oh cool, so you're all up in everybody's business?
----
I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Canada invented getting up in everybody's business, after all we invaded two countries! Wait...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You managed to invade us twice while belonging to two different empires. You invaded us when you belonged to France during the Seven Years War, then you invaded us when you belonged to Great Britain in 1812.
It's no wonder where we got the inclination from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne is *totally right*, we invented getting into other people's business, because we invaded two countries.
Of course when we do it, it's 'getting into other people's business'. When certain...other countries do it, well of course it's something else entirely. But I suppose with a label as meaningless as 'internationalist', inconvenient consistency would be easily avoided.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
- china's brutal occupation of tibet: a.o.k. - china's warmongering towards taiwan: a.o.k. - america's electoral college process: GET ALL UP IN DAT BIDNESS
This here "Internationalist" stance sure seems useless
quote:I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Rioting. Bad things. Very bad things. But at least the end of the electoral college at an .. enhanced medium term schedule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently Paul Ryan did something which I really can't see as anything other than incredibly, remarkably toolish. He weaseled his campaign photo op team into a soup kitchen without proper permission to do a photo-op of him washing* dishes, you know, to show how much he cares about the poor or whatever**.
*well, "washing." they were, uh, already clean
**they had made the claim they wished to speak to the clientele, but made sure to come by only after it was closed and all the indigents wouldn't get in the way of the photo op
***to add injury to insult this is an organization that would have been cut of all funding and left to dry under ryan's own plan, I think
Proving you Care about Poors, the Republican Way?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
LOL, I was just watching the video of the Long-Term Unemployed undecided voter. There's a segment of him in his community college class, and they show you what he's writing in his notebook:
"My favorite movie would have to be Highlander. This movie is about a Scottish highlanders that becomes immortal. His name is Duncan McCloughed."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
could he be more of a stereotype wtf
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I can't imagine how pissed folks would be if it actually went to the House.
Rioting. Bad things. Very bad things. But at least the end of the electoral college at an .. enhanced medium term schedule. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I propose an 8-team playoff in place of the electoral college.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Undecided voters FTW. You can mix and match their shoes and their favorite beverages. Brought to you by CNN, patron site of undecided voters.
LOL, I was just watching the video of the Long-Term Unemployed undecided voter. There's a segment of him in his community college class, and they show you what he's writing in his notebook:
"My favorite movie would have to be Highlander. This movie is about a Scottish highlanders that becomes immortal. His name is Duncan McCloughed."
And he calls himself a fan?
Inexcusable. And not just for the spelling.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Apparently Paul Ryan did something which I really can't see as anything other than incredibly, remarkably toolish. He weaseled his campaign photo op team into a soup kitchen without proper permission to do a photo-op of him washing* dishes, you know, to show how much he cares about the poor or whatever**.
*well, "washing." they were, uh, already clean
**they had made the claim they wished to speak to the clientele, but made sure to come by only after it was closed and all the indigents wouldn't get in the way of the photo op
***to add injury to insult this is an organization that would have been cut of all funding and left to dry under ryan's own plan, I think
Proving you Care about Poors, the Republican Way?
The problem with funding wasn't that Ryan's budget would cut it. The problem is that his funding comes entirely from private sources that insist on strict non-partisanship. If his sources decided the Ryan visit was an endorsement, the funding could dry up.
Ryan did not clear the visit with the management of the kitchen, where it would have been most certainly rejected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In addition to the whole thing being completely faked. But, apparently, we are so used to lies that it hardly bears mentioning.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
How about the vast iniquities ironed into a system that hinges upon certain very much non-representative swing states, in which individual voters are, as a function of the system, vastly more significant in the political process than those of states with larger populations, and less proportional representation.
And while I fully understand and sympathize with the problem that smaller states, with smaller economies and populations, need some insurance against the influence of larger states- this is still a system in which the world's 8th largest economy (California), rates almost no attention in an election season. That is decidedly a problematic situation. And as long as huge net tax contributors are having their political future decided by equally big tax recipient states, there will remain an inequity. There's a reason why it's politically feasible to shut down military bases in California, and not to do so in some other states. And it has nothing to do with which is costing more or producing more- it has to do with the fact that there are several states that would be considered 3rd world nations without the direct support of the federal government. And we aren't one of them- but we have to give them enhanced representation in the electoral college.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay, so you've pointed out some flaws in the EC system. That's largely true. But recognizing something has flaws doesn't mean it should be destroyed. Lots of flawed things still provide vital functions.
If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
The interests of several significant minority groups would be completely steamrolled, wouldn't they?
Seems like there's a lot of problems with the idea of getting rid of the Electoral college, too. So why advocate such a radical and potentially disastrous change?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Also, the EC is really easy to game compared with popular vote systems. As social scientists become better at predicting people, this will become a worse problem.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't. Reform is necessary. Of some kind. Radical change is too dangerous, for the reasons you mentioned.
But there are several plausible replacement systems, none of which offers a perfect solution. Voting by congressional district is one example. (in fact, the framers of the constitution envisioned this as the likely scenario- that congress would directly elect the president due to a lack of majority in the EC). A mixed system including popular and district voting is another.
You're not right on when it comes to how campaigns would run if it depended on the popular vote. First of all, the states are apportioned a fairly close representation according to their populations. Only the very smallest states have crazily high proportional representation. That means the urban centers of America are already having a huge influence on elections. For instance, urban centers in New York and California dominate those states, and ensure that all of the state's votes go to one side. A popular system would eliminate that pressure and open up rural areas in those states to campaigning. And it would free other smaller urban centers from the yolk of their larger rural counterparts. The fact is that the popular vote, despite the disincentive to vote in non-swing states, is relatively close, traditionally. Certainly, if anything it is often closer than the EC numbers suggest. I just don't think it should be dismissed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Well, really, look at that very statement. Popular voting "disenfranchises" no-one. Everyone would have a vote. He's talking about the attention of political campaigns, which would focus on urban centers. But what he's actually talking about, is the fact that if the popular vote ruled, the Republican party would not exist in its national form. There are just too many democrats- and if all their votes mattered just as much as everyone else's, the dems would win every election. Then fairly soon it wouldn't be the Dems and the Republicans. It would be the Civil Democrats and the Progressive Democrats, or whatever you can think of- as it is in many countries where there *is* no social conservative major party.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This article shows a few pretty clear pros and cons of the college:
Hmm. I think that the biggest argument for getting rid of it would be to enable third party candidates to have a real chance. But it seems fairly evident that a popular vote might be a bad idea. Especially considering the size of some of the states (California, Texas) and special interest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Why do you assume "cavalierly"? I am pretty sure that folks here (in general) have considered the EC quite thoroughly and seriously.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There are also minorities being disenfranchised because of the EC. I imagine the net total of disenfranchised minorities would probably wash out in the end.
Well, really, look at that very statement. Popular voting "disenfranchises" no-one. Everyone would have a vote. He's talking about the attention of political campaigns, which would focus on urban centers. But what he's actually talking about, is the fact that if the popular vote ruled, the Republican party would not exist in its national form. There are just too many democrats- and if all their votes mattered just as much as everyone else's, the dems would win every election.
Where are you getting this? The parties are pretty solidly split across the country, with Democrat registration slightly higher but with more independents leaning Republican.
I think what you're really saying is this: because all the largest cities lean heavily Democratic, Democrats would get a significant edge (from where they are now) if the votes of all those cities were effectively pooled regardless of state lines.
That's true. Republicans would have a much more significant logistical challenge, I think, given the more rural/diffuse tendency of their constituency.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Then fairly soon it wouldn't be the Dems and the Republicans. It would be the Civil Democrats and the Progressive Democrats, or whatever you can think of- as it is in many countries where there *is* no social conservative major party. [/QB]
You think the Electoral College is what keeps that from happening here? And not, you know, the dramatically different history, traditions, and culture? Okay...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
Why do you think that, Sam/Blayne/etc.?
Why do you assume "cavalierly"? I am pretty sure that folks here (in general) have considered the EC quite thoroughly and seriously.
I didn't get that impression from Blayne at all.
In fairness to Sam though he seems cavalier about everything, so...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
In a world with mass communication, does that really matter any more?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The electoral college is a demon that brings the entire election down to just a very few states. Candidates spend time promising the world to Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and almost everyone else gets almost entirely ignored. That's not democracy, it's not even a republic; it's an oligarchy. There is simply no argument that makes up for that in the pro column. Far too many people are shut out of the process; period.
Going to a straight up popular vote enfranchises the whole country. No one's votes get left out. No one is powerless. Everyone has a voice, everyone has a chance to have their issues spoken to, no one ever has to feel that their vote doesn't count.
Voting by congressional districts won't work for a single reason: gerrymandering. More resources than every will be put toward making sure one party or another controls the state house every census so they can cook not just Congress, but the entire government, in their direction. No thank you!
I just don't get what the fear of big states is. Big states already have massive power in the electoral college! Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania are considered the Big Three of any election, and it's specifically because they are big states, they just happen to swing their allegiance more often. But California has more electoral votes than the bottom 12 or so states combined. They already have a lot of power! And for that matter, no one campaigns in those 12 states! Their votes are totally taken for granted. And yet regardless of all that, the EC still makes a vote in one of those 12 states worth much much more than a single vote in California.
One voice, one vote, one person. That's how it should be. If you can't win based on the strength of your argument and candidacy, we shouldn't be using electoral trickery to make some people worth more than others.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities. Hell, would they have any incentive to campaign outside of the coasts?
The interests of several significant minority groups would be completely steamrolled, wouldn't they?
As opposed to now where major cities are pretty much ignored* and huge amounts of time and attention (and money) are spent on six undecided voters in Ohio and Iowa?
Which minority groups do you have in mind?
*Of the top 10 population centers, I would guess that only 1 (Philadelphia) gets any attention. Roughly 80% of the people in the US live in cities and suburbs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities.
I'm absolutely fine with that, personally.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If we did away with the EC, candidates would have zero incentive to campaign outside of major cities.
I'm absolutely fine with that, personally.
Why's that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because rural areas are not important. I understand that we Americans tend to mythologize rural regions, but it's stupid and illogical of us. You aren't entitled to a more valuable opinion because you live a hundred miles from the nearest theater and own a tractor.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah.
So then who looks out for the interests of those people? Or is getting screwed over by a government that despises them just the price they pay for not being important?
By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Economically speaking, Tom's perfectly correct. Rural areas produce little of economic value that requires skills of any kind. While they produce the majority of the nation's food, and are home to most of its resources, that food and those resources are had at a low cost for that very reason. That these areas exercise such an unbalanced level of political influence is odd, since they would, and do, produce the same amounts, and in the same ways, no matter the economic conditions. So political changes affect these areas much less (apart from keeping some of them artificially populated through government spending).
Whereas in Europe, where the majority of capitals are politically and economical hypertrophic, they somehow manage to do better in the realms of transportation, health care, and education across the board. "Somehow" being of course focusing their resources on urban centers where most of the economically valuable and fungible activities take place.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
Ranchers and farmers would still be a powerful constituency. Right now they are an OVERPOWERED constituency. They have way, way more political clout than the average person and have obscene amounts of money funneled their way. And the sad thing is, by and large they are co-opted by massive ag conglomerates that suck up the money that purports to be spent on those small time farmers. Also, there are fewer small holding farmers than at any point in history. There simply aren't that many farmers any more. Why on earth would you structure a national election in a country with hundreds of millions of people and incredibly diverse interests on a few thousand people in a single industry?
And why on earth do power plant workers count as any sort of useful voting bloc? It's one job in a country that has thousands of different kinds. At any given time, someone's job is going to be under fire. Why would you structure your elections to artificially empower some over others? That's ridiculous.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
That's true. I think people bring it up so often because the ones that are living in rural areas experience a level of poverty unknown anywhere else in the country.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If you need it to be a racial minority, I guess American Indians fit the bill for the most part. They're mostly in rural areas.
Oh cool! I sometimes forget that, though the Navajo Nation is the biggest reservation in the country, it doesn't actually contain a majority of Indians.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*nod
There are a host of issues not encapsulated in the raw numbers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
Are we now defining "minority" to mean person who holds any particular type of job? Do we count, say, librarians as a minority? Trombone players?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
Ranchers and farmers would still be a powerful constituency. Right now they are an OVERPOWERED constituency. They have way, way more political clout than the average person and have obscene amounts of money funneled their way. And the sad thing is, by and large they are co-opted by massive ag conglomerates that suck up the money that purports to be spent on those small time farmers. Also, there are fewer small holding farmers than at any point in history. There simply aren't that many farmers any more. Why on earth would you structure a national election in a country with hundreds of millions of people and incredibly diverse interests on a few thousand people in a single industry?
And why on earth do power plant workers count as any sort of useful voting bloc? It's one job in a country that has thousands of different kinds. At any given time, someone's job is going to be under fire. Why would you structure your elections to artificially empower some over others? That's ridiculous.
Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
Are we now defining "minority" to mean person who holds any particular type of job? Do we count, say, librarians as a minority? Trombone players?
If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In that strict sense, any discrete group occupying a cohort of less than 50% is a minority. It's very broad. Too broad to be very meaningful.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Though I agree that the power plant workers example wasn't terribly well thought out; I'm not attached to it. It was just the first rural job that occurred to me after the obvious "farmer."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why should rural jobs count extra?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Not going to wade into the electoral college discussion, other than to note that according to Nate Silver's model this year the Republican is more likely to win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. So while it's generally true, I think, that the electoral college is of marginal benefit to Republicans, it's not universally the case.
Continuing with my poll fixation: Romney hit 50% in a poll for the first time today. Today's Gallup poll has him up 50/46, as does a poll out today from Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP. Rasumussen has him up 2 (49/47), ARG has him up 1 (48/47), IBD/TIPP has him down one (46/47) and Ipsos/Reuters has him down three (43/46). It's interesting that Obama's number doesn't fluctuate between the polls nearly as much as Romney's does, suggesting perhaps that Romney's support is softer but also that he has a little more head room. Or maybe it suggests nothing; one should always be cautious about over-generalizing from just a handful of polls.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
It's worth noting that the Electoral College isn't the sole representative of first-past-the-post systems (as opposed to proportional). It's just an incredibly awful version of it.
Aggregating votes on the state level is just horrible, but I'm actually pretty happy with our aggregation on the riding/congressional district level.
Gerrymandering is easily solvable, we simply don't really have that as a real problem.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting ... Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
Not quite true as well, Canada has five parties with a seat in the Parliament without proportional representation or ranked voting.
Most of our provinces have three or more parties as well with similar systems to the federal one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's Canada.
This is America.
We've had two party rule since the day the Constitution was signed, and there's rarely been any indication that the system was in danger. In recent years, it's only gotten stronger.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
So, anyone here watching the second debate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. But it is making me crazy. I can't stand listening to the governor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So...is he trying to run as a Democrat now?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
This moderator is doing a much better job of guiding the discussion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Better than Lehrer? Sure. Better than Raddatz? Not even close.
I love that she fact checked Romney, live, and shut him down. It was incredibly effective. He didn't push back at all. But other than that she's been walked all over.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB] - china's brutal occupation of tibet: a.o.k. - china's warmongering towards taiwan: a.o.k. - america's electoral college process: GET ALL UP IN DAT BIDNESS
This here "Internationalist" stance sure seems useless
Ignoring of course the fact that as Canada's largest trading partner, your economy sucking because of your terrible anachronistic political system means negative results for Canada via economic contagion; but you go ahead there with random meaningless tangents that you won't meaningfully debate either way.
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The moderator was supposed to basically do nothing substantial so being anything other than being a carpet is violating the rules te candidates agreed upon. The rules for the debates are insane and make it hard to get anything really good from them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting debate. Obama righted the ship, but Romney was pretty solid as well.
I'd say Obama comes out much better int he next news cycle, and then I think, if he chooses to, he can be very aggressive on the foreign policy debate.
The polls will be really interesting in the next few days.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible. Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here. Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either. But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I. Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
Loved the fact check part too. I'll say there is one policy Romney has stuck to: he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Sorry to disappoint, man! It's just that I think you've been misunderstanding me a lot, which is fair, because I've mostly been asking questions and making oblique comments, not making any big assertions.
I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever. But, that's me, and I think I'm a minority on that front. 90% of the arguments both Romney and Obama make are fundamentally flawed and taking the wrong approach, from my view.
So, to a certain extent, some of my comments here were from a devil's advocate position.
But I am genuinely leery of destroying old traditions without a very good reason, and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
The fact that California is big and mostly Democratic doesn't seem like a huge tragedy to me. That can change (hell, it has changed recent memory, even). It's a reinforcing phenomena, where more leftists are drawn here because of the atmosphere, so it gets more leftist.
The fact that the candidates don't campaign here isn't actually a tragedy to me. They'd campaign here if the people of this state gave them a reason to.
So, anyway. Sorry to get you worked up for a shadow boxing match! Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: . . . he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Well, what other choice do they have?
I mean, if one guy is offering you something you know you hate, and the other guy says he can give you something you want but refuses to say how... what do you choose? At least the second guy says he'll do it. Somehow.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible.
*Shrug* Don't debate me then, no one is forcing you, but don't make claims that aren't true or at best gross exaggerations.
quote: Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here.
I do not "permit" anything, I do not suddenly say "no" to discussion. I cannot control when people decide resorting to personal attacks is preferable to engaging the facts.
quote: Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either.
No idea what your talking about, I do not feel entitled to anything other than what every poster is entitled to.
quote: But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I.
We're discussing the United States, is your argument it is okay if China does it? Is the United States not to be held to a higher standard? Is the United States not a member of the UNSC? Is not the United States of America not a founding member of the United Nations and a signatory of the United Nations Charter, and thus legally bound to Article 2 subsection (1),(2) and (3)? China's actions and in actions are not relevant here.
quote:Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
2.1% GDP growth is stagnation, that and there's good evidence to suggest the number actually lower, in the negatives when you account for real inflation.
Then again, it was a snarky response to a snarky comment in good fun, but I guess coming from me its just screams "CONTROVERSY MAGNET" and jokes about people's country aren't funny when it's your country?
To forestall the inevitable "Bullshit you were completely serious!" Allow me to quote the exchange:
Orincoro: Us, eh? Blayne: I'm an internationalist. [Note, in context I meant "The Socialist International.", and largely a statement of how the cause of progress and egalitarianism is universal and without borders. See my above comment about how a "sluggish" since you object to the word "suck" through the well documented economic phenomenon of "contagion" is a real thing, economy can and will bring down the economies around the sluggish one. Otherwise why would the US be worried about the collapse of the European Union and why ASEAN is worried about the United States, since in 1997 the Asian economies had a huge crisis.
Blackblade, aka The Other BB: "Oh cool, so you're all up in everybody's business?"
Which I took it to be snarky riffing to which I responded in kind.
Blayne: "Canada invented getting up in everybody's business, after all we invaded two countries! Wait..."
Perhaps I needed to add "Oh snap!"? I feel BB got the joke;
The Other BB: "You managed to invade us twice while belonging to two different empires. You invaded us when you belonged to France during the Seven Years War, then you invaded us when you belonged to Great Britain in 1812.
It's no wonder where we got the inclination from."
To which Rakeesh responded to indignation.
Rakeesh: "Blayne is *totally right*, we invented getting into other people's business, because we invaded two countries.
Of course when we do it, it's 'getting into other people's business'. When certain...other countries do it, well of course it's something else entirely. But I suppose with a label as meaningless as 'internationalist', inconvenient consistency would be easily avoided."
And then came Samprimary who just can't resist his role as Forum Crusader!!! with his what would be on any other forum qualify as ~~a vendetta~~ to bring up what are in all seriousness, red herrings.nyoron~~
If you can't stand the heat get out of the fireplace.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Eh? People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Dan Frank; I do and have seriously considered the Electoral College and while I feel that Orincoro has the right of it, if you feel you really wish to hear my reasoning here goes:
I feel that the Electoral College and by extension First Past the Post voting to be inherently undemocratic; and serves as a modern day anachronism that only exists because back in the day the 'States' were actually sovereign entities, for instance during the Civil War Kentucky declared itself neutral(!) if I recall.
Nowadays though secession is laughable, the very idea of the states exercising anywhere near the same level of sovereignty against or in opposition of national will is a fantasy. The very idea that someone from the most populace state such as California could automatically elect the President by virtue of its population such as Virginia back in the day is just as ludicrous.
The Electoral College has served its purpose and has run its course and needs to be dismantled; the basic principle of democracy is One Man-err Person, One Vote. The Electoral College ignores the votes of millions of people, because they are from states that are so Red or so Blue as Stewart says, that courting them is unnecessary and can safely be ignored.
Secondly First by the Post is inherently undemocratic because mathematically it will always lead to a two-party system where a vote for a third party is automatically a vote against the other party whose platform is mostly similar to yours and would represent your interests better than the other primary party.
It ignores smaller parties with otherwise attractive platforms but lacking in the money to compete and prevents alternate political platforms from getting traction in the national assemblies; Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Ideally you want Mixed-Member Proportional and political parties recognized as A Thing(tm) and be inbuilt into the Constitution and then do away with the Electoral College entirely.
Then truly every person will have a vote and every vote will be meaningful as a Republican in New York will finally have as much say as a Democrat in Missouri.
The only counter argument I hear is comes from either the more American specific (States Rights) and European specific (Extremist Parties holding the Balance of Power). I consider the former irrelevant in this day and age when megacorporations are gaining in power as we transform into probably an Orwellian "Jennifer Government" dystopia where boundaries in general cease to matter and the latter I consider fitting punishment for people who are silly or stupid enough to not vote.
Will people in California have more say then Iowa because of more people is more votes then less people with less votes? I don't think so, that would be to say that Californians are so inherently different in their interests that Californian interests could potentially harm Iowian interests which I feel is silly.
Not that there aren't issue where this could potentially be the case, such as Arizona wanting water from the Great Lakes; but any sane central government able to rise above the petty squabbles of its constituent states and elected proportionally instead of by geographically specific ridings should be less swayed by geographical paraochial concerns; and "pork" federal funding should decrease as constituents nolonger represent "areas."
Alternatively you could use the Shortest split line method with its algorithm available online and open sourced to be publicly critiqued and improved to still maintain geographical ridings. But the results will likely statistically vary extreme enough with lopsided elections that you might away just opt for MMP representation.
Thus you also eliminate gerrymandering which is a huge voter suppression issue in the United States.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing
How could giving me a choice other than a center-right party and an extremely right party be a bad thing?! Seriously!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I didn't watch the whole debate, but my favorite part was when Romney promised to create 12 million new jobs and later rebutted something Obama said with "Government doesn't create jobs!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... China, they are our largest trading partner ...
Edit to add: Not that I want to wade into the larger point, I'm just sayin'. Credit where credit is due.
On a related note, but not addressing that issue specifically. This is of interest:
quote:China is poised to lose its place as the U.S.’s biggest creditor for the first time since the height of the financial crisis, blunting one of Mitt Romney’s favored attacks in the presidential campaign. Chinese holdings of Treasuries rose 0.1 percent this year through August to $1.15 trillion, Treasury Department data on international capital flows released today show. Japan, a stronger ally of the U.S., raised its stake by 6 percent to $1.12 trillion, on pace to top the list of foreign creditors by January.
[ October 17, 2012, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
I didn't say rapid, I said eventual/inevitable. I believe here is a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture, but I feel that this may no longer be sufficient to prevent a 2 party system from arrising, the Bloc has collapsed, and the Liberals were badly mauled and the NDP by shifting slightly to the middle and with the Conservatives a "umbrella" party of various economically or socially right wing parties. Thus spoiler vote is definitely a thing and results in anyone seeking to not let the CPC win must find the party must likely to win and strategically vote for them to win. This is liberals in some ridings but may increasingly be the NDP.
quote: The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, if you'll recall it wasn't about China v US. It was about your claim to be an 'internaionalist' (which I suspect means whatever you want it to mean at a given moment), coupled to your denunciations and sneering at a few examples of American behavior. I wasn't claiming the US was clean and pure, I was calling your implied claim of rational objectivity so much bunk. Because it is. You're 'an internationalist' when the US invades two countries. You're something else when China sticks it to Tibet, or threatens war over free elections in Taiwan, or has thugs brutalize the families of dissenting lawyers, so on and so forth.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I don't know why you felt the need to step into a joking exchange between me and BB to bring up other threads airing vague grievances, nor do I see your claim about me having some kind attitude of "objective rationality" convincing as the most appropriate response to the post in question about said attitude.
Everyone has two choices, to use comments as a springboard for bickering or to constructively discuss the topic at hand. America having a "sluggish" economy is definitely I feel worthy of discussion and saddened that you felt the need to focus on implied tone rather than the substance as to what was said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture ...
Bah, video is 6 minutes long and totally theoretical. Theory is fun and all, but I tend to think that if a model has to ignore most of the historical record as exceptions or in your vocabulary "events" then I think it's time to find a new model.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
Mucus -
quote:People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not really, Canada was expanding considerably through most of its history, with a rapidly growing population and consistently shifting demographics. That plus the Quebec Question, the question of Canada's role within the Empite/Commonwealth (Sir Wilfred Laurier is my favorite Prime Minister if you ever wondered), not being an independent country for most of our history, can all be very circumstances as to why we didn't shift to a two party system sooner.
A look at three countries chosen at random with Winner take all systems and are developed G20 countries: Mexico, South Korea and the United Kingdom all show typical Two Party politics; third party's exist in each example and actually get a non trivial amount of the votes relative to American Third Party's but seemingly no where near what would qualify as a vibrant multiparty democracy.
Mexico had one election recently where they had a 33% three way split it seems, but every other recent election is typical two party, without looking into it my guess is ~drama~.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
@Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: disenfranchises tens of millions.
Voter turnout in 2008 was only ~132 million.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
rivka -
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see your point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: @Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
The best solution to solve gerrymandering would be to create non-partisan commissions at the state level to determine districts. It's what California does.
Near as I can tell, there's no such thing as gerrymandering at the presidential level. We don't redraw the state lines every ten years. It's simply a function of how the EC apportions votes in combination with the census.
Now, if we changed the law to make it so that the EC afforded states votes based on population rather than based on congressional representation, I'd be more in favor of keeping it. It would remove many of my objections. But it still wouldn't be perfect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Disenfranchises hundreds of millions would be more accurate I'm guessing? Presuming we define "Don't care to vote as vote does not matter/A Pox on both their houses." as disenfranchise, which I think is reasonable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't count "a pox on both their houses" people. That's a separate issue.
I do count "there's no point in voting, I live in a red/blue" state.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I do count "there's no point in voting, I live in a red/blue" state.
People who make the choice not to go to the polls are not disenfranchised. Or are only by their own choice.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree.
There's institutional discouragement from participation.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I would argue that not having a vote that matters is essentially the same thing as not having a vote at all.
The difference between the legal difference and the effective difference doesn't matter much to someone whose vote is useless. I'm far more interested in actual equality as opposed to equality on paper.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
Once that is fixed, if conservatives such as Dan_Frank still want a compromise between the first-past-the-post EC and a fully proportional system, then I would suggest looking at shrinking the the aggregation. Rather than lumping all votes together by state, I would be more familiar with the Canadian system where votes are lumped by each riding (districts).
Swing states become swing ridings, but swing ridings are much less predictable and move around much more often. It's not perfect, but I still think it's an improvement. Even for conservatives (for example, our conservative party doesn't just throw up their hands when it comes to major cities, they *compete* well in cities).
As for exceptionalism, that may be a discussion for another day. I do actually think that the US does have unique attitudes. "Can-do" optimism is (was?) one of them. kmbboots has spoken pursuasively about the link between prosperity and virtue in the American mind which is another example that comes to mind.
Blayne Bradley:
Ok, so two of the countries you listed, Mexico and South Korea don't even use FPTP in the way that we're talking about. They mix in proportional representation to give representation to third parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting
The countries you're left with are Canada and the UK. The UK has ten parties in Parliament, Canada has five.
We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
Correct response.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm perfectly clear in my meaning in the context of our discussion, if I see a parliament or a senate or congress dominated overwhelmingly by two parties its a two party system that pressures voters into voting for the lesser of two evils and consistently so.
I was actually looking at Presidential elections by mistake and not parliamentary elections; but stating that because Canada has 5 parties and UK having 10 is disingenuous because how many of those parties actually matter if one party has the majority needed to no longer worry about opposition?
Simple election analysis of Canada shows the problem perfectly. The Conservatives have a majority, voting by your conscience in a close election may result in a spoiler effect in which the Conservatives, by virtue of being an "open tent" party will recieve the majority of majority votes will always win a majority government; because all the other voters are split up among all of the other smaller parties.
The result of this is that rational voters will strategically vote for the party that is more likely to win that somewhat better reflects their interests as per the video.
So in Canada this means less for the Liberals and more for the NDP if the principle goal of the average non Conservative voter is to prevent a Conservative majority then your vote is clear, vote for any party in your riding that is NOT the CPC that is most likely to win.
So the Bloc having a few seats and the Liberals having seats mean absolutely nothing, because a majority government in Canada means you can do pretty much anything and the only real opposition is the Courts.
If your definition of "multiparty" is that a country only needs to possess more than 2 party's having seats then not even the United States would qualify as there's seats held by Independents.
Again, there's also the undeniable example of the United States which has FPTP and is a two party system; we haven't "gone" from anywhere, merely examples of where the system is conspiring to divide up politics between two major parties is the point and the theory is a compelling reason as to why FPTP is undemocratic.
I don't understand why you feel that theory is to be tossed out of the winds but certainly in the context of American elections there's a two party system and the spoiler effect a compelling reason as to why the status quo is god.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
As a history grad student, I've seen enough cases in history where someone made the argument you're both making, and it was effectively a distinction without a difference.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
That is not what I said, or rather you seem to have missed my explanation; WWII resulted from the world partaking in protectionist measures that further excabated the Great Depression, the current Bretton-Woods system exists to prevent that; thus if the US abandons Bretton-Woods and partakes in protectionism then WWIII could be a likely outcome from the economic instability and crisis that follows.
Do you at least see the point I am getting at? That I used :goonsay: hyperbolism within the post shouldn't actually obscure the broader point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
There's also nothing to stop "bipartisan" commissions from simply drawing the lines in such a way that the same representatives get elected in each election and other backroom deals.here. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen...
That's very possible. Apparently, Canada went from you guys primarily have (ridings drawn by government) to bipartisan in 1903. That changed to non-partisan in 1963. But I guess what I'm saying is that it did happen and it happened in a significantly less progressive country than the Canada of today.
I guess we will see, but I think that with the US following us slowly in making same-sex marriage legal or allowing gays in the military (or making really baby steps toward universal healthcare), I think that reforms we did decades ago should be doable (translation might be "yes, we can").
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
I'm a liberal (in the Burkean sense, a conservative if we're just looking at the American nomenclature). I think that progressive reform should be handled carefully, because otherwise we're liable to destroy valuable traditions. Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
Earlier in my post I explained a substantive way we disagree about how much the EC "disenfranchises" people. I'm with Rivka on that one. All of this isn't too say I'm somehow adamantly opposed to reforming the EC at all, by the way. Just seems like there's a bit of overzealousness here, from you and others.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
My answer is below, because it has to do with 3rd parties.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
So...
An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology. I think the standard Libertarian line about Romney and Obama being the same is malarkey. They're not.
But lots of parties in a popular vote system can deeply confuse this ideological struggle, and also have really nasty side effects.
Here's a concrete example: Let's say the Affordable Care Act is a major issue of the day. Obama will keep it as it is. Jill Stein will dramatically increase its funding and influence. Romney will dismantle it.
If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You presume some sort of FPTP system where the first person to get a plurality wins; if you had instant run off where people get also alternate candidates to apply their vote to you would have most of the Jill Stein votes go to Obama to avoid Romney winning from the vote splitting.
Your also not considering what the House/Senate would look like with viable third parties, third parties by virtue of being smaller can have much more discipline and organization that even the GOP would be amazed at; just look at the Libertarians conspiring to get Ron Paul elected by planting agents as Romney voters.
So you would avea case of 40% GOP seats, 30% Democrat and 30% Greens, the Democrats and Greens only need to form a coalition with 1 or 2 GOP and the ACA can't be dismantled.
As long as you can avoid the Spoiler Effect then you can have third party's capable of better reflected choices and preferences without also having a candidate the majority do not want winning.
quote:Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
The EC makes the country more vulnerable to voter fraud, is the absolute most troublesome contribution to voter apathy in the country, presents the non-negligible risk of creating an EC outcome which literally results in riots and an entire presidency being considered completely illegitimate in the eyes of most of the country, and is in all ways a perfect candidate for proactive removal.
It will be removed one way or another. Its days are numbered. The question is whether this happens before it has a chance to really, REALLY supremely dick up an election.
It is not even really that radical a change. The EC has already had "radical change" (The vice president used to be the candidate with the second most EC votes) and weathered this kind of perfectly valid change perfectly fine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
Really? Tell that to Gore voters in 2000.
Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point. We always cry about how low voter participation is a big problem, but what's the point of voting if you know when you wake up that morning exactly how the vote in your state is going to go? If we all voted right now, today, there's no way of knowing how the national election would go. But in the vast majority of states, we'd know exactly how our state would go. Do you really feel like you have a vote if every election is already a foregone conclusion?
If everyone had an equal say and someone loses, then that's just how it works. But that's not how our system works. We have a mechanism in place that can award the presidency to the loser. It happened 12 years ago. We have a mechanism in place that essentially takes the votes for the loser and throws them out.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
You'll have to explain why you think this would happen. Because I don't see it at all. Switching to a popular vote would have no effect at all on the strength of third party bids. In fact, I think the electoral college actually helps them. A candidate could conceivably spend all their time in Vermont and at least get the support of a single state. In a popular vote with people spread all around the country, the job becomes herculean. I don't know what mechanism you think the EC performs that stifles third party votes.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology
I'm with you right up until you suggest the best way to solve this is by forcing people to choose between Democrats and Republicans. They aren't my first choice. I don't want them. I'm stuck with them. Lots of people feel that way. But you think it's a good thing that we're stuck with fewer, crappy choices? That's terrible.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
To continue what I was saying and to steal from Blayne, yeah, there's a really, really simple solution: Ranked voting/Instant run-off.
Fewer choices is stupid. There are common sense solutions that result in a clear winner without allowing the situation you described and without forcing people to choose from the narrowest of possible choices.
Because the ultimate problem with your stance is that the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, while real, is incredibly thin relative to the broader political spectrum. The difference between Romney and Obama is like the distance between The Mississippi and the Atlantic Ocean. "Oh my!" you might say, "that's so far apart!" until you realize how far away Asia is. Our choices are incredibly limited, and that's very demoralizing to a lot of people.
Every year we're forced to choose between two people that we hyperfocus on to pretend the daylight between them is more like a solar flare than a flashlight. And that choice is even more limited if you live in a certain state. It's demoralizing. Inclusiveness is highly discouraged because people are pigeonholed before they ever reach the ballot box.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:by Samprimary is the absolute most troublesome contribution to voter apathy in the country
QFT.
That's one of my main arguments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point.
Correct. The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Tell that to Gore voters in 2000.
You mean, like me?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
This is something we haven't talked about as well, but it's equally problematic. Candidates only have to speak to the interests of a few states, which often don't at all match up with many others, order to secure an election.
Does anyone think the conversation on lifting the embargo on Cuba would be the same of kowtowing to the Cuban vote in vitally important Florida weren't an issue?
What about the issue of ethanol and corn subsidies to farm states?
Promising Ohio and Pennsylvania blue collar workers we're get them back their mining and industrial job. My god, we're setting NATIONAL energy policy based on the demands and desires of a few tens of thousands of people in a handful of states who want to keep their jobs!
It's a terrible way to govern. It's a stupid way to govern. It ensures that some people matter more than others.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
even ignoring special interests ENTIRELY and imaging a fantasy fairlyland where all of the states still matter to the election even just a little (as opposed to now where something around 10% of the population ultimately matters at all), you would STILL have the massive disparity. Live in Wyoming? Congratulations! Your vote outvotes literally four Californians.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In this instance I am proud to have been mugged Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's a question: who would, today, if conceiving of a system to handle Presidential elections, would craft something like the EC? Because really, I don't see anyone doing it if it didn't already have the inertia of tradition pushing it along.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would craft it only if I wanted an election where I kinda sorta wanted to gouge popular will but then have my appointed buddies decide the election for me but keeping the result close enough that people don't complain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Does anyone else besides me see something suspicious in the fact that the moderator of the second presidential debate, Candy Crowley, happened to have on hand a transcript of Obama's September 12 Rose Garden speech, which she held up and sided with Obama, saying he did say from the very start that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack? It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand. What Obama actually said in the Rose Garden speech on September 12 was that America would never give in to terrorism. He did not say that the Benghazi attack that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the American abassador to Libya, was a terrorist attack. That is what Obama claimed in the debate, but that was an obvious attempt at deception, considering his repeated claims for almost two weeks that the deaths were not the result of an organized terrorist attack.
The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember her actually having a paper copy of the transcript on hand.
She corrected him, and I'm not sure the crux of her correction was wrong, then she sort of backed off and allowed him some space.
I think she realized she's stepped over the line and tried to back off, but the damage was done, which is also why it's difficult to see it as anything but unplanned and accidental.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney, however passionat your exclamation point was. But then you see Obama conspiracies literally everywhere, so I'm sure if you decide to don your heavily scrawled signs again, we'll at least be entertained.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
OMG! A journalist knew a fact. I can understand why people are suspicious. She not only knew the questions ahead of time but had conducted at least one interview about the speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
I wasn't surprised. I mean, I'm a news junkie, but the news is literally her job. And that wasn't exactly a small fact to know given what the media have been harping on lately.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We can tell Obama is doing well when Ron steps up to claim there's a conspiracy.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
QFT.
Can anyone convince me a vote for a third party here in Chicago matters, at all?
ETA:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand.
You're right! But Romney messed up, he phrased his attack wrong and you could see it on Obama's face. It wasn't a conspiracy it was a unfortunate slip of the tongue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It wasn't just a random fact. She had personally been corrected on that point during an interview with David Axelrod.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Corrected in what way? Because from where I sit, she was wrong on the facts, and if Axelrod fed her the fact then he's wrong as well (or, you know, spinning).
The President referred generally to 'acts of terror' in his Rose Garden speech, but not specifically to the Benghazi attack as being an act of terror. He then spent two weeks steadfastly refusing to refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, even when pushed on the issue by reporters, even after other elements within the White House and State were doing so. The President was very cautious about the application of the specific term to the specific case (and rightfully so, I would say). To assume that the general comment about "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech was referring specifically to Benghazi requires that you ignore the following two weeks of careful evasion of the issue by the President.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not even the Republican Richard Nixon? Not even George H.W Bush who said he would not raise taxes?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
He'll get another chance on Monday, but he was already blunted on his best line of attack. Obama knows what's coming and how to parry it.
He'll have to come up with something better and more sustained, because the clock won't save him when 90 minutes are spent on basically Israel, Iran, Libya, and Syria.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
From what I gathered, Obama said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks, that we wouldn't be afraid/give in/some platitude to "these acts of terror."
In the debate, Obama referenced this, saying he remembered being in the Rose garden, calling it an act of terror.
Romney said that Obama never called it an act of terror, and that Obama was lying.
Crowley then said, after Obama and Romney bickered, that Obama did say "acts of terror," but that Romney was correct in his assertion that saying that the attacks were committed by terrorists didn't come until much later.
I don't know why conservatives got their panties in a bunch over it. Obama didn't lie, and neither did Romney. Romney just didn't understand the nuances of the English language very well in that moment. And came off looking dumb. And Crowley affirmed both candidates' stances and saved us a minute of useless squabbling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney but you'll believe it anyway no matter what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is the kind of "lie" Obama get's caught in? It's too bad Republicans are against closing Gitmo. Because Obama talked about doing that and never did. Of course, the Republicans would look a little stupid blaming him for it, but still. It would be kind of like a doddering old man making fun of Obama for getting us into a war in Afghanistan... because it didn't work out with the Russians. Wait what?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income...
Is that the yardstick? I thought we were arguing over whether it was a consensus that taxing capital gains was bad, and higher capital gains taxes were themselves always also bad.
A bit of old news w.r.t. this thread, but I heard a story on NPR this morning (which was also old news; I didn't realize it at the time, but it was recycled from a few months ago) and it put me in mind of this thread of discussion.
quote:Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
This may oversell the consensus, since I know there is at least one influential academic study that argues that due to finite markets there should be a lower bound on corporate tax rates. So rather than saying all economists agree there should be no corporate income tax, it might be fairer to say that the strong majority of economists believe there should be no corporate income tax, with a minority believing that it should be lowered but not eliminated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are we confusing corporate income tax with capital gains tax?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are we confusing corporate income tax with capital gains tax?
D'oh! If by we, you mean me, yes, yes we are. If I weren't morally opposed to the use of emoticons, I would add a blushing embarassedly smiley here.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think this is all moot until we have women in office. Lots of them, really. Binders full of women.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
binders full of women, man.
i mean i stopped and rewinded it. I was like "what did he just say?" and was doubly confused because he was concertedly ignoring the issue of gender pay parity to talk about how hard he worked to hire binders full of women and I'm like
"i think there were about a thousand better ways to frame that"
ofc i later find out it turned into a megameme
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm torn on that remark. On the one hand, it is precisely the sort of thing one would expect someone who had a guilty conscience with respect to including women would say. On the other hand, it is actually quite important politically that one present the correct appearance on that matter, such that I can see anyone-guilty conscience or not-being concerned about it.
But hopefully this will permit more discussion on just which Romney Mitt Romney *is* with respect to insurance coverage for contraception and abortion and other matters, since he hasn't been much called to account on it so far. It is interesting just how strikingly honest the Etch-a-Sketch remark was, and how little Obama has been able to hammer on it so far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is almost like having binders full of Jamaican neighbors.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think I'll switch sides. I want Romney to win. Just so I can have one of those calendars that lists a gaff or a funny quote every day. Man, it was great when George was in office. Funny quote every day!
''I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me.'' —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
''It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.'' —President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
''I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.'' —President George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
''Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican.'' —President George W. Bush, declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
''It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.'' —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie.
I'd ask why you don't care about Romney's much more frequent and brazen lying, but I doubt I'd get an honest answer, if I got an answer at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Upset that Gov. Ronmey wasn't able to capitalize on tragedy? How can we trust a person whose mind works like this?
It's about 4 minutes into the first video. A partial transcript:
quote: Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…
Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.
Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?
Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?
Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.
Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
(Bolding mine)
Seriously. Between that and the 47% remark, he had better have raked in the big bucks at the fundraiser.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do so enjoy how Ron's hatred of Obama wedded to his dishonesty creates statements such as that one. Obama isn't just a liar, he's the lyingest liar who ever lied in American politics *EVER*, and not only that it will be proven to be so.
Obama isn't just evil, he's actually a sort of heroic level of evil, a once-in-centuries level of evil. I'm not sure Romney's horse is white enough or his lance long and keen enough to slay such a beast!
Perhaps Lyrhawn, especially with his studies of late, might regale us with some really shining examples of lying politicians that might be less well known but also especially amusing, but that would only ever be a sidebar since you, Ron, are infamous in politics for believing only what you wish to believe. I could almost wish Obama was what you claim he is-secret foreign Muslim commie atheist-because if so you would've found yourself carted off to a camp somewhere ages ago.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.
Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.
Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.
We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.
Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.
(emphasis mine)
If we're gonna talk about it, let's have the text handy.
And here's where it was discussed during the debate:
quote:OBAMA: Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do. The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief. CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to... ROMNEY: Yes, I — I... CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please. ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. OBAMA: That's what I said. ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying? OBAMA: Please proceed governor. ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. OBAMA: Get the transcript. CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror... OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. CROWLEY: It did. ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary — OBAMA: Candy? ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how — OBAMA: Candy, I'm — ROMNEY: — this was a spontaneous — CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me — OBAMA: I'm happy to have a longer conversation — CROWLEY: I know you — OBAMA: — about foreign policy. CROWLEY: Absolutely. But I want to — I want to move you on and also — OBAMA: OK. I'm happy to do that, too. CROWLEY: — the transcripts and — OBAMA: I just want to make sure that — CROWLEY: — figure out what we — OBAMA: — all of these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered.
Without going into my opinions on what any of this meant, I would like to point out that Candy Crowley is CNN's chief political correspondent, and I would expect her to be very familiar with what was said where and when. That's her job.
Also, she has said that she feels the administration is vulnerable on this point -- something she even pointed out at the time -- and she was trying to move the debate along:
quote:Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you, actually, last night. What I was trying to do ... I was trying to move this along. The question was Benghazi. There is no question that the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic — that they did take weeks to go, “Well, actually, there really wasn’t a protest and actually didn’t have anything to do with the tape. That took a long time. That’s where he was going. That was his first answer. And then we got hung up on this, “Yes, he said. No, I didn’t. I said terror. You didn’t say terror.” And then there was this point they both kind of looked at me. You know, he was looking at me and the president was looking at me. And what I wanted to move this along — could we get back to this? So I said, “He did say acts of terror, called it an act of terror. But Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.
You may continue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, perhaps this is just a quibble, but when the first president Bush said, "Read my lips--no new taxes"--and then a couple of years later he did raise taxes, he was not lying, he was breaking his promise. And many people credit it as one of the main reasons for his failure to win re-election. So he paid for it. Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. On both counts, Obama is headed for the dustbin of history.
And Rakeesh, it is not accurate to claim that I hate Obama. I hate his policies, and what he represents as someone who does not believe in America, and in his utter lack of qualifications to ever have been elected. I also hate the stupidity of people who ignored all the valid criticisms and warnings and went ahead and voted for him in 2008. That whole attitude of willful blindness I regard as exasperating, and I worry about how soon such thinking will succeed in completely negating all the good that America has stood for, when they they allow evil to take over effective control and turn the "lamblike-beast" of Revelation 13 into a dragon.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ron, perhaps this is just a quibble, but please stop referring to Americans as one single-minded group. At least half flatly disagree with you on Obama (and many other points), and they are every bit as American as you are. Knock it off.
(Posted this before Ron added his second paragraph, and while I'd ordinarily argue about Obama's Americanism it seems obvious that Ron considers him the Anti-Christ or the harbinger of same, and I stopped getting into religious arguments a long time ago. No point, and it wastes my time.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them, or fails to keep his promises. Which is manifestly demonstrated by the fact that the first president Bush failed to win re-election.
I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him. Truly, logic and factual argument are not everything to everyone, no matter what they may profess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am also concerned about WHY anyone at this late date would still support Obama and even try to defend him.
To be fair to Ron, I had the same question about George W. Bush the second time around. I couldn't come up with any answers that were not highly critical of his supporters and derogated their motives, information sources, and/or intelligence, and still have not been able to do so.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The first Bush failed to be re-elected for several reasons. His broken promise on taxes was one, as it annoyed his base, but there was also the death of Lee Atwater, Bush's main operative; the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hall hearings which angered women voters against the old-boy network; Bush's support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1990; affirmative action, and the Clean Air Act, all of which annoyed his supporters; and most of all there was the tanking economy that forced Bush to raise taxes in the first place. Then there was the charismatic Clinton who came from a poor background and promised to fight against the rich fatcats (i.e. Bush) for the middle class.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: I could have an honest discussion about Obama's faults if I felt you would be fair-minded. It doesn't seem occur to you that Romney has lied repeatedly to secure election, yet you are quick to chew up Obama on this point.
Any conversation we'd have would be intolerably one-sided. Republicans good Democrats bad. Republicans love America, Democrats hate it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You may say you don't hate (with a capital H or something) Obama all you like, Ron. But then on the subject of Obama you are first a known liar*, and second your own words explaining your thoughts on the man undercut your claim anyway. You think he's destroying America, and willfully lying in order to do so. America is a country you claim to love quite a lot, but you also claim that Obama is willfully and with prior intent working to weaken and ultimately cripple it.
Very few people could truthfully claim not to hate someone who was maliciously working in wicked ways to destroy something they dearly love, so your claims to the contrary I feel quite comfortable in rejecting your words that you don't hate Obama-particularly since you can be relied upon to lie to your position's advantage, even on factual matters-see below.
*I need go no further than to point to your behavior with respect to a video you claim and claimed for a long time to portays clear statements that Obama was not born in America. Even when it was proven beyond any doubt that it didn't say what you claimed, even when you were informed that the portion you said proved your case was shown not to do so, you continued to lie and claim it did. You simply cannot be trusted to speak honestly when it comes to Barak Obama, and no one reading this needs to take my word for it. The thread and links to it are still here.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For some voters (and politicians) it's actually pretty simple. White, god-fearing Christian men are supposed to be in charge, wealth and success must be rewarded as proof of worth, poverty must be shunned because all poor people are willful drags on the country, and everyone else should just do as they're told. Anything else is un-American.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Bush didn't get re-elected because the Dem's actually had a decent candidate. Too bad the Republicans don't, this time around.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Truly, logic and factual argument are not everything to everyone, no matter what they may profess.
I'm still giggling over this...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why vote for Obama?
- The economy is slowly coming back from the position the last administration left us. Obama has passed 18 tax cuts for small businesses, presided over thirty straight months of job growth, passed the Recovery Act that helped prevent another Great Depression, and prevented the collapse of the auto industry. In the first quarter of this year the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 posted their best quarters in nearly fourteen years, while the NASDAQ had its best quarter since 1991. I see no reason to return to the failed financial policies that got us here in the first place. -He protects citizens against predatory practices. He passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that represented the toughest financial overhaul in decades, and passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to prevent credit card companies from scamming customers. - He expanded tax credits for hiring and training veterans, and expended the GI Bill. - He overturned Bush's stem-cell ban, and generally promotes science over ideology. - ObamaCare. - He's for equality. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to improve women's chances for equal pay and he (finally) got rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. - Foreign policy. He focused on Al Queda as a police investigation rather than a war and has seen remarkable results, including the death of Osama bin Laden and the decimation of the Taliban leaders. He restored much of the world's trust in the U.S. after Bush pissed most of it off. He supports Israel without automatically rubber-stamping everything the current head of Israel.
That's off the top of my head. And I'm pretty sure just about all of that will be proof to Ron that Obama should be stopped.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And all of that with republicans in congress whose main purpose was to cause the president to fail.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An interesting inside look at the end of the interview on how campaigns digitize voters and hyperfocus their attention on an ever shrinking portion of the electorate.
More evidence on the terrible effects of the EC.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Without forgetting that that isn't mere political supposition of the usual kind, but publicized statements made by Republican leaders in Congress.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: From Senoj's link:
quote:Four: Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. Taxes discourage whatever you're taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs. Not such a good idea. Instead, impose a consumption tax, designed to be progressive to protect lower-income households.
WTF? How would this work? What is a consumption tax, a sales tax? How do you make a progressive one?
The Fair Tax has been kicking around for years.
The idea is to replace all forms of taxation with a consumption tax, which I think is priced at something like 27% on all goods. Supposedly, the price of goods actually wouldn't change all that much, since corporate tax rates and other tax hits on businesses would actually offset the cost of goods and keep prices stable, but we'd all have a ton more money in our pockets.
On top of that, you get reimbursement checks from the government if you're of a certain income level to cover the tax hit on housing, food and the like, so the tax isn't regressive.
That's the basic gist.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:From Ron:
OK, let me say the majority of voting Americans do not tolerate a president who lies to them
Hah. The opposite is often far, far more true. The American people love being lied to.
One of the better examples I like to use is Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Carter went on TV and told Americans that the best way to fight our enemies was to change the way we live. Stop consuming so much, stop using so much energy, and it would alleviate many of our economic and foreign policy problems.
Reagan went on TV and said he'd fight to keep everything exactly the way it was, and our goal wasn't to change ourselves, it was to change our enemies. America ate it up.
Carter lost, not just because of his sobering energy speech, of course, but it's a fantastic point of exception where an American president got real with the people for a moment, and was swatted down, hard, by the electorate for it. We generally do not respond well to hard truths, and we reward presidents who hide us from them.
Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
You're going to have to explain to me how asking Americans to use less gas is "deeply evil."
Do tell.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan considers reducing consumption to be an evil act. He's said as much before. His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even if he does believe that, evil would seem to be a dramatic overreach.
And that's not even addressing a host of other issues that are problematic with such a belief, like what to do with interim problems.
Even so, consumption and scarcity aren't even the biggest issues with oil use, it's a strategic concern as well. It's one that presidents have been talking about since at least EISENHOWER. But we haven't done a thing about it, with the possible exception of CAFE standards, in the last 50 years.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Seems like you're conflating advocating something deeply evil with telling a "hard truth."
What? Is Tom right in describing your opinion that technology and the ~invisible hand~ of the market will magick us out of scarcity issues? If so I have a 2 hour series to direct you too because this is far from the reality.
It is possible he was reading a broader meaning into 'changing how we live' than simply reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Some, even many of those potential meanings could he considered 'deeply evil'.
That said, if you consider advocating reducing the consumption of fossil fuels to be deeply evil...well. You've got a huge amount of work ahead of you in explaining how reducing the use of a resource that is expensive, scarce, politically problematic to obtain in many cases let's just say, and negatively impacts the environment (and thus human and ecological welfare, with all sorts of unknown long term impacts) in favor of a gradual switch to less scarce, less dirty, less politically dangerous and yes, potentially more expensive means of energy supply...well. A lot of work ahead of you.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh's first paragraph is closest to what I meant.
But since Tom brought it up, I can go off on that tangent too!
I'm not specifically saying any advocacy of reduction in fossil fuel use is evil, no. I've repeatedly clarified this, and Tom keeps forgetting it.
The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
------
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: His belief is that we will science our way out of scarcity.
We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
------
Blayne: I'm not interesting in spending 2 hours watching something if it can be at all accurately summed up by those link text titles. "We can only delay the inevitable" is such a wrongheaded sentence it's actually staggering.
Yeah, we can delay the inevitable, through technology. This is a good, not a bad, thing.
For example: All life in our solar system will cease to exist, unless we create sufficient knowledge and technology fast enough to avert it. That's inevitable.
But there are no laws of physics that we know yet that prevent us from delaying this inevitability. In fact, we could even do so indefinitely! But again, only if we have sufficient knowledge.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:
For example: If I argue we should remove the minimum wage and you say "No, then the poorest people will take a 10% pay cut," I sound like a heartless monster. But if you advocate for switching to an energy source that is 10% more expensive, it causes the same loss of wealth for poor people. And yet this sort of thing is advocated all the time.
This is not true whatsoever and has never held true and has never been true.
Putting in the investment into energy production like nuclear power is more expensive, but this isn't something that causes a 10% difference in a person's standard of living. It is the job of the government to prepare for the forthcoming energy crunch through investment and incentives.
Subsidies into the hydrogen economy for instance, is fungible with non fossil fuel energy's;it's something that can scale to the country as a whole.
What is true, that people can and should be encouraged to drive less, especially in cities and rely on walking, public transportation, bikes and so on. This is incentive and does not constitute "sacrifice"; even 10% less cars on the roads would be huge for reducing emmissions while still allowing people to have good quality of life through other means.
Cars are more of status symbol, if every major American city had a subway transit system as large and comprehensive as new yorks, and light rail that helped connect every american to every part of America the way China currently now is setting up its own light rail infrastructure; there wouldn't be a need for cars as it exists now.
Asking people to drive less, or car pool more, or ride the bus isn't asking them to sacrifice something anymore than making icecream slightly more expensive.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If your uninterested in seeing the debate from the perspective of the other side than obviously you will never be swayed by the evidence.
The evidence is that the energy provided from fossil fuels is rapidly declining, we have already in fact hit peak coal, the amount of energy extracted from coal mining in the United States has in fact flatlined, every additional tonnes of coal mined does not in fact provide us any net gain in energy; and this holds true virtually every extractable resource.
The ultimate fact is Dan is there's going to be an adjustment, a by forceful adjustment anyways eventually because complex society cannot exist without an discretionary energy surplus; a surplus that is rapidly shrinking.
Of course you don't have to "scale back" voluntarily, it will be forced upon you regardless of what you wish; but by not taking steps now it will be sooner rather than later.
Me not wanting to watch your video ≠ Me being uninterested in the "other side" of the debate. Nice try, though!
I have no doubt that one day we will no longer use oil or coal. And I'm not opposed to that. What does that have to do with anything? I oppose "scaling back" our use of these products if doing so would have a negative impact on wealth. Right now, it seems like that's the case. Ten or fifty or a hundred years from now, it may not be. Great!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's an abridged video linked above at 40 minutes; there's very little excuse to not watch them, everything I say is largely sourced through those videos.
The fact is we need to scale back now because if we don't the readjustment the western first world will go through will be that much harder, harsher and faster and worse for everyone involved.
By scaling back on fossil fuels you reduce greenhouse gas emissions (something that the United States and much of the world successfully worked together on to ban aresols that damaged the ozone layer), you make it more economically viable for alternatives such as nuclear power and cause significantly less environmental pollution. If done smartly, through incentives such as taxation to discourage the use of fossil fuels and reckless consumption of energy you can direct those revenues towards the investment; either in R&D of new sources of alternate energy or substitute industrial materials. Or into the next generation of energy infrastructure for a hydrogen or nuclear economy.
Scaling back on fossil fuels by scaling back on the usage of automotive transit is the easiest means of accomplishing this, with the least amount of pain and suffering and won't affect growth with sufficient investment in other sectors.
A New Deal styled jobs plan, to get millions into work to rebuild America's infrastructure, and upconverter it for more energy efficient alternatives and renewables would be a massive improvement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Man, Blayne, it just sounds worse and worse the more detailed you get.
You even managed to throw in "New Deal style" at the end there! It's like you're trying to make me never watch this thing! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
We've allowed ourselves to be held hostage by price shocks to the global supply of oil, and to international affairs. We've also allowed it to dominate our foreign policy, costing us yet more untold billions of dollars.
If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
Biofuels have come an incredibly long way in a short period of time, and they're carbon neutral in addition to being totally domestically produced. We're really not that far away from being able to grow our own fuel without sacrificing food stocks to do it.
The bitch of it is, the axe HAS fallen the hardest on the poor, but not necessarily because of high gas prices. Prices have spiked most precipitously because we've done nothing for years to prepare the country for these price shocks. And as we tighten our belts, public services like mass transit services, used overwhelmingly by the poor, also take major hits. These are services we would have invested in more if we needed alternatives to cars, but we don't, so they suffer even more.
You're only looking at an incredibly narrow set of criteria and thus are producing a very narrow hypothesis for what you think people are advocating and what would happen as a result.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dan -
quote:The thing is, I think a lot of people who advocate such reductions are dramatically underestimating the immense good that has come from our use of fossil fuels. And they are way too unconcerned about the ramifications of such a "changed lifestyle."
It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
Also, people handwave away the "more expensive" part of alternate fuel sources, which is brutally unfair. "More expensive" means "more limited." Worse, it means "less wealth," which means less wellbeing, shorter lifespans, etc. It's a terrible thing.
Well, first of all, I think you're conflating "reduction" with "elimination."
Also, for someone with such faith in technology, I find it surprising that you think things that are expensive now will be expensive forever.
I don't!
That you think I do means there was a misunderstanding somewhere. Sorry about that!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But let's look at this from yet another angle. If the United States had gradually raised the gas tax over the last couple decades to a couple bucks a gallon, we would have collected hundreds of billions of dollars for research and infrastructure investments that would have puts us years ahead of where we are now. Our consumption of fuel would be dramatically less than it is now. Our cars would be more fuel efficient, and we'd likely have more advanced, cheaper biofuels. And the price of gas wouldn't be any higher than it is right now.
You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If your really want to make this about money: An ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. We keep putting things off until we're FORCED to make a change, rather than starting the ball rolling before we have to to make the transition cheaper and easier.
I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So like, three questions.
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
quote:"Consumption" of fuels provides us energy, which increases productivity, which increases progress. Not to mention increasing wealth, and therefore quality of life, lifespan, etc.
2. Why is consumption in quotes
quote:We "will?" I mean, we already have. Many, many times.
3. Should policy be predicated on the idea that (a) we can always count on science to science away our shortages, or (b) that it is entirely possible to catastrophically overconsume or overuse available resources in a way which causes disaster later
Like for instance, what's going to replace cheap phosphorous that is going to prevent the Green Revolution from collapsing into a larger famine once India once again filled to capacity via consumption?
Or, erm, "consumption."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
quote:You're making rapid fire hypotheses with no way to back them up, here.
We also could have sunk a lot of money down a hole with little gain.
Here's the thing though, we already HAVE sunk a lot of money down a hole. We've spent billions on tax breaks and giveaways, on foreign "aid" to dictators, on wars, on subsidies to drivers, and more, over the last couple decades.
In just the last four years, we've spent a good chunk on renewables and biofuels, and it's already made huge advances. Imagine if we had done this a long time ago when the need wasn't quite so urgent. We could have spent less and had the time to let it develop slowly and cheaply. Now we don't have the time and we have to pay more. People were making the arguments for it back then. People making your argument stopped them.
quote:But this part of the argument is really hitting upon a substantive disagreement you and I have about government vs. free market solutions. It's not anything unique to gas/energy prices, really.
The solution you advocate here presupposes a win/lose way of life, where the government should force us to suffer a little now for future benefit. It assumes a win/win scenario is impossible. But that's a bad way of looking at life.
If it's possible to produce alternate energy in a viable way that doesn't require sacrifice, then when people discover how to do that, they will have a profitable venture. They can then persuade people to buy their energy, because it will be worth it.
We don't need to use force and human sacrifice to make it happen.
This presupposes, bizarrely, that people don't suffer under your system (i.e., what we already do now). I find that a puzzling idea. Prices have spiked in the last decade due to inaction in the public and private sector. The problem is, the free market doesn't care about people, it cares about, as you say, wealth creation, but not for specific peoples, just on the whole. So if all those profits go to a few people, the free market is perfectly happy. Corporations don't exist to create a stable energy market, they don't exist to ensure price stability for consumers, they exist to make money. With prices for commodities spiking, they can corner the market on an absolutely necessary fuel source and reap huge profits from consumers. And that's what's happened.
So, where in that scenario is the free market protecting people in a way that makes it better for people than if government tried to plan ahead?
I'm not sure if I understand what your idea of "sacrifice" is. Maybe that's another fundamental misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that in a contest of our two theories, yours has no sacrifice, and mine is unreasonably painful. Is that accurate?
quote:I don't think I've mentioned money once. Have I? It's about wealth, not money.
And it's not about us being "forced" to make a change, Lyr. It's about not forcing them to change, and people only making that changes that they see as worth it.
You'll have to explain the importance of the distinction.
You'll also have to explain why you think individuals should be in charge of national energy policy. But I think I know what you'll say on that one.
I'm also not sure what you mean by force. Circumstances have dictated changes in the past, but they usually force them in painful ways that hit the poor (who you brought up) far worse than other segments of society.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So like, three questions.
quote:It's not that reducing "consumption" is evil. It's that such calls invariably also call for all sorts of human sacrifice, which is evil.
1. So, basically, anything mandating "human sacrifice" like governmentally requiring energy saving windows in new construction is evil, I guess?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)