US Politics...the Reckoning

[Shryke]

DP baby!!!

[TrackerNeil]

I'm honestly curious as to what you think Obama 2.0 will do.

- Replace 1-3 Supreme Court justices with people not like Antonin Scalia.

- Continue supporting EPA regulations on improving the environment.

- Continue to implement minimum fuel efficiency standards.

- Protect the ACA from Republican attempts to repeal it.

Admittedly, he won't get much through Congress, but the above items don't require Congressional approval. That's enough for me.

[Guest Raidne]

Integrity? Hate to break it to you, but:

***

Yeah, that's a real libertarian right there.

Not to nitpick, but Ron Paul has always been pro-life - he's even a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Life act. Ostensibly, he thinks it's a state issue, i.e. the federal government shouldn't be saying whether it's illegal or not since there is no authority in the constitution either way, but that's arguably at odds with sponsoring a federal bill that defines life as beginning at conception.

But then again, arguably not - "life" is arguably an explicit federal right such that it's the province of the federal government to pass legislation defining it, whereas abortion isn't discussed one way or another, and neither, in any explicit sense, is privacy.

Individual citizens rarely bring their job with them when they move to a state. They move to a state because they believe they can get a job there.

You know, about Texas. Here's the thing. I can see the argument that Texas has done well during the recession. I bet they have managed to attract new business. Because they have no zoning, no environmental protections, no anything. And that's why so much of it looks like the embodiment of libertarian hell on earth. Thre's a certain beauty to the refineries, maybe, or the highways, but Freeport is a rotting wasteland of industrial sewage. That's vulnerable to Hurricanes. And Houston? Well, there's a reason that there's a companion campaign to "Keep Austin Weird" called "Keep Houston Ugly." You have people arguing (rightly, really) that there's no way that a 30 story high rise apartment building should go up in their historical neighborhood (River Oaks) when last week they were going on about how great the lack of zoning laws were. Yes build a light rail! But NO! Not where anyone would actually use it!

I have no problem passing on a little economic recovery to avoid the living nightmare of all of that. It already chased me out of one state, and fuck me if it's going to infest the whole country.

I suspect that is a minority sentiment among the electorate.

Ask me if I care.

[Shryke]

Might get DOMA sorted out too.

[awesome possum]

I suspect that is a minority sentiment among the electorate.

You're right. A not insignificant portion also wants to see the GOP completely lose anything resembling control of the House. So it wouldn't be the status quo, because we might be able to go back to actually getting pieces of legislation passed, even if they are watered down because of further GOP temper-tantrum-sore-loserism (previously known as obstructionism).

[Fez]

Not to nitpick, but Ron Paul has always been pro-life - he's even a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Life act. Ostensibly, he thinks it's a state issue, i.e. the federal government shouldn't be saying whether it's illegal or not since there is no authority in the constitution either way, but that's arguably at odds with sponsoring a federal bill that defines life as beginning at conception.

But then again, arguably not - "life" is arguably an explicit federal right such that it's the province of the federal government to pass legislation defining it, whereas abortion isn't discussed one way or another, and neither, in any explicit sense, is privacy.

I'm not saying he lacks integrity due to flip-flopping, but that he lacks integrity due to being pro-life. In almost every other respect he think the government should never ever (never ever? never ever!) restrict someone's freedom but here he does and is willing to use the full force and power of the government, something he otherwise opposes at all turns, in order to prevent women from having the freedom of choice. Why is government action only bad if its restricting something he doesn't approve of it restricting and all of a sudden magically okay if its something he thinks shouldn't be allowed? If he wasn't a (hell, the) libertarian, this wouldn't be an issue. But as he is, and freedom is therefore the central tenant of his political philosophy, he's a hyprocrite and, as such, lacks integrity.

[Kouran]

All terrible reasons, all concerning electability. Any candidate can be made to look as though they have problems being electable. Take a look - we got a guy with a Kenyan father that was raised in Malaysia with the middle name Hussein up there.

Well I suppose the other side of that would be the tar and feathering that Perry has gotten on this board, in this very thread, talking about how he prayed for rain in Texas. Having said that I couldnt vote for a mormon, they are just too fucken weird and anyone who believes that Jesus came to America and preached to the Indian's is just looney toons.

I'd find it a lot easier to vote for either of them than a guy who thought Hardwick was good law, thinks the establishment clause amounts to tyranny of the atheists, and told the audience not to blame his wife for the wrinkles in his shirt (!!!).

Not sure what you mean here, could you explain?

You know who had integrity? In terms of consistency of actions and values? Stalin. It's not a sufficient condition for the Presidency. :P

Who wouldnt vote for Stalin? I mean shit he had a fucking bad as mustache, plus he would have you killed with an ice axe if you fucked with him.

If it's more Obama 1.0, i.e. a total and sudden halt to the spiral of catatrosphe that was the Bush Administration - from which I was not, and am still not, even sure we would ever, ever be able to recover - I'll sign up, no problem. What's the alternative? I think a lot of us forget that they weren't done yet. Surely there is more bureaucracy to wreck, more social freedoms to reverse, more economic loss to realize.

I'm totally fine with the status quo. I'm not a radical.

I am not as familiar with the damage to the federal bureaucracy as you are Raidne, since I dont work for or in it. Though I dont want a president that pulls things apart without all due consideration and need. Obviously if something is broken then it needs to be fixed, but if it works dont fix it until its broken; thats what our retard congress does.

[lokisnow]

I'm kind of curious as to all the folks here who are obviously rooting hard for an Obama victory.

What exactly do you expect he'll do in a second term that you think will be a good move? Is there specific legislation you think 1) he'll support and 2) that will pass, that will help things?

Because the way I see it, at a minimum, the GOP will retain a sufficiently strong core in the Senate to filibuster any progressive agenda items. Do you think he and the Democrats as a whole will reverse course on entitlements and support hard structural reforms?

I'm honestly curious as to what you think Obama 2.0 will do.

Why should they support hard structural reforms to entitlements when the GOP has made it clear they don't support hard structural reforms to taxation?

[TerraPrime]

But as he is, and freedom is therefore the central tenant of his political philosophy, he's a hyprocrite and, as such, lacks integrity.

There are no politicians who are not hypocrites. The question is whether this politician's hypocrisy is something that you can stomach, or not.

[Fez]

There are no politicians who are not hypocrites. The question is whether this politician's hypocrisy is something that you can stomach, or not.

I know, that's sorta my point: saying that you hope a politician wins a nomination/election because they have integrity is a silly thing to say since none of them do.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why should they support hard structural reforms to entitlements when the GOP has made it clear they don't support hard structural reforms to taxation?

You and I already agreed months ago that federal revenues and expenditures should both be capped at 19%. The rest is just details. I'm perfectly willing to cut the budget to bring it down to that number, and raise taxes as necessary to get there. Any revenues over that amount get refunded the following year, any expenditures over that amount get subtracted from spending the next year. Simple!

[awesome possum]

Well I suppose the other side of that would be the tar and feathering that Perry has gotten on this board, in this very thread, talking about how he prayed for rain in Texas.

Really? One or two people on an internet message board now somehow equals the hundreds of thousands - if not millions of idiots who believe Obama was born in Kenya?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

- Replace 1-3 Supreme Court justices with people not like Antonin Scalia.

- Continue supporting EPA regulations on improving the environment.

- Continue to implement minimum fuel efficiency standards.

- Protect the ACA from Republican attempts to repeal it.

Admittedly, he won't get much through Congress, but the above items don't require Congressional approval. That's enough for me.

Hey, that's fine. I guess I was curious as to what people thought he'd do to help the economy.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Jon Stewart had a good piece on his show last night about how the mainstream media consistently ignores Paul despite his high poll rankings (ie: coming in second at the Straw Poll). Only in Amurica baby.

Fez, regarding Ron Paul being ethically inconsistent for being pro-life, people who are pro-life view abortion as murder. Not even hardcore libertarians like Paul support a person's individual libertarian right to murder. :P

So no, I don't think his views on abortion are inconsistent with his libertarian platform. If he were simply pandering he would also be against gay marriage and drug legalization, which he is not. Considering the fact that the Straw Poll relies heavily on the Socially Conservative vote, it makes sense he would repeatedly harp on the one issue that he agree with those people on.

Now, I'm pro-choice myself, and I think the pro-life view is illogical, but I think it's important to recognize that abortion is seen as a human right's issue on both sides of the aisle.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion on Ron Paul in this thread actually. If he got the GOP nomination I'd vote for him over Obama in an instant.

ETA: Here's the clip I was referring to.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Hey, that's fine. I guess I was curious as to what people thought he'd do to help the economy.

What's anybody going to do to help the economy? I'm pessimistic but would like to be convinced. I think Tom Friedman's latest column is quite interesting. While he doesn't explicitly say that we're all doomed, "we're all doomed" is quite easy to infer.

For the record I don't think that it's feasible to generalize Rick Perry's Texas solution to the entire United States.

[Guest Raidne]

I think Paul is speakIng from his experience as an ob-gyn, which was apparently rather different than in Cider House Rules.

I do actually think he has integrity. I just am not a character voter, as I'm an issues voter.

[TerraPrime]

I know, that's sorta my point: saying that you hope a politician wins a nomination/election because they have integrity is a silly thing to say since none of them do.

Well, I would't conflate hypocrisy with integrity.

Hypocrisy is needed because either you have to modulate your view to get elected, or you're forced to compromise once you are elected. That's political reality.

Integrity, on the other hand, encompasses more than the inconsistencies in political views vis a vis actions. An example might be a politician who tries to make hay out of his opponents marital infidelity while he himself tries to divorce his first wife while she's recovering from cancer, for instance. Another example of a lack of integrity might be for a person to exculpate himself from the repercussions of a foreign policy that aids and abets terrorists groups against U.S. troops by claiming that he lacked the knowledge of such an event, and then subsequently put a lower-ranking official in front of the bus to take the hit. Yet another example might be for a politician to cause the death of a young woman due to his chronic problems with driving while under the influence. Now these things are about integrity, imo, and those are indeed something we ought to consider when casting our vote.

[Fez]

To me; not everyone who lacks integrity is a hypocrite, but if you're a hypocrite you do lack integrity. Of course neither is important to me, I only care about results. I do think though that people who do value them should really study their candidates, since there's always faults; usually pretty big ones.

[Shryke]

Protect the ACA from Republican attempts to repeal it.

Stop the GOP from slashing government spending even further and making the current economic slump even worse.

[Shryke]

Jon Stewart had a good piece on his show last night about how the mainstream media consistently ignores Paul despite his high poll rankings (ie: coming in second at the Straw Poll). Only in Amurica baby.

Fez, regarding Ron Paul being ethically inconsistent for being pro-life, people who are pro-life view abortion as murder. Not even hardcore libertarians like Paul support a person's individual libertarian right to murder. :P

So no, I don't think his views on abortion are inconsistent with his libertarian platform. If he were simply pandering he would also be against gay marriage and drug legalization, which he is not. Considering the fact that the Straw Poll relies heavily on the Socially Conservative vote, it makes sense he would repeatedly harp on the one issue that he agree with those people on.

Now, I'm pro-choice myself, and I think the pro-life view is illogical, but I think it's important to recognize that abortion is seen as a human right's issue on both sides of the isle.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion on Ron Paul in this thread actually. If he got the GOP nomination I'd vote for him over Obama in an instant.

Eh, he's not really being ignored more then he deserves. This article does a good job covering it: http://www.salon.com/news/2012_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/08/16/ron_paul_2012

But basically:

1) Ron Paul always "polls well" for certain definitions of "poll" and "well". Specifically, he has rapid supporters who are fully capable of skewing results his way in certain types of polls and such. This is not reflective of actual support for him.

2) Further to that point, Ron Paul doesn't win. And this isn't new. Ron Paul gets good results in some polls and such because he has rapid supporters. He doesn't, however, have numerous supporters. And this has always been true. Ron Paul today is the same as Ron Paul 4 years ago: irrelevant. He won't win shit, he's never won shit, so the media ignores him.

3) Finally, the Ames Straw Poll is itself a fucked up measure of support. It's more like a test for certain candidates. Here's a good explanation from the article:

The problem is that the straw poll isn't really about the literal order of finish. It means different things to different candidates for different reasons, and its main function has long been to help winnow or otherwise clarify the GOP field.

Thus, this year's straw poll wasn't about all of the GOP candidates; it was about two particular candidates who chose to (or were forced to) contest it aggressively and who had something very specific to prove.

One of them was Tim Pawlenty, who spent the last year trying and failing to find traction in early state polls (and with GOP donors) before making the straw poll his do-or-die test. When, after pouring considerable time, money and organizational muscle into the event, he managed to grab just 13 percent of the vote, Pawlenty flunked his own test, which is why he dropped out of the race on Sunday.

The other candidate with something to prove was Bachmann, who has shown surprising strength in Iowa polling, vaulting into the lead in the late spring. Given the crucial role that conservative Christians, Bachmann's natural constituency, play in the Iowa GOP, this prompted serious talk that she might actually win the caucuses this winter -- then wreak serious havoc in subsequent contests, and maybe (under a remote but not entirely implausible scenario) walk off with the nomination. This made the straw poll a crucial test for Bachmann: Could she put together an organization capable of harnessing the grass-roots energy she has sparked and delivering a victory? Or would we find out that her campaign really doesn't have its act together, and that her star isn't really that powerful? Her victory is further reason to believe she's a serious caucus contender.

Now you could say that this time, this time, it will be different for Paul. By I doubt it and so does the media and hence, no one cares.

Ron Paul can rent a blimp. Ron Paul can shout madness and truth in equal measure from the debate stage. But Ron Paul can't win the nomination.