US Politics - Holiday 2011

[ThinkerX]

If the debt is not the problem, then what is the problem? Or better yet, what is the cause?

Greed. Greed and a lust for power.

Old AD&D term - 'Power Gamer' - you familiar with it? The player who exploits loophole after loophole in the rules to turn his character into a virtual demi-god? The real world equivilent is running the country.

These people (democrats and republicans alike) might (falsely) claim they are working to balance the budget or make things better or solve this or that problem, but get right down to it, they want to be the guy in charge, giving orders - particular orders that benefit *them*. Despite their protests to the contrary, they are happy with things the way they are now because this is the system that benefits them the most.

[Shryke]

More signature related hilarity in the primaries:

In RI:

Local GOP leaders are warning that changes made to local ballot laws last spring could result in no Republican Presidential candidate ending up on the primary ballot in April.

the law also forces candidates to declare by January 19, giving them just two weeks to secure 1,000 valid signatures on their nomination papers to earn a spot on the ballot. To date, none of the candidates have an organization set up in Rhode Island, according to Dave Talan, the corresponding secretary for the state GOP.

http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/gop-disaster-presidential-candidate-might-not-make-ballot-in-ri/

In Virginia:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who along with Newt Gingrich didn’t submit the required number of signatures to petition to make it onto the Virginia Republican presidential primary ballot, is taking the fight for ballot access to federal court.

The Perry suit claims Virginia’s entire statutory scheme for getting on the presidential primary ballot is constitutionally flawed, but it zeros in on the state’s ban on the use of out-of-state petition circulators to gather signatures. Perry argues that the requirement that petition circulators be either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to vote in Virginia is what prevented him from gathering the necessary number of signatures.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/rick-perry-sues-virginia-republicans-over-ballot-access.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Apparently Virginia is more carefully checking the signatures being gathered, which is why Perry and Gingrich got their applications thrown out.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The Iowa GOP just announced that due to "Threats from the Occupy Movement", they are moving their ballot counting to an undisclosed location. So I don't think you all need to worry about Ron Paul winning anything.

[Ser Greguh]

To jump in, large multinational corporations don't give a rat's ass about the size of "The State" in the abstract. Why on earth would anyone even begin to insinuate that? They care about the degree to which the state helps or hinders their interests. A company that focuses on green technology, for example, is obviously going to support candidates that support the EPA because EPA regulations that hinder traditional businesses will generally help them.

And they still have to choose amongst the active field of viable candidates, which means that from their perspective it's a balancing act. One candidate might mean more regulation but lower taxes, another might mean lower taxes, less regulation, but be a longshot for popular support. It's not exactly complicated, but it's not nearly as simple as some are making it out to be. True puppet candidates, like Scott Walker in WI, are an exception to the rule.

Old AD&D term - 'Power Gamer' - you familiar with it? The player who exploits loophole after loophole in the rules to turn his character into a virtual demi-god? The real world equivilent is running the country.

It's actually a bit worse than that; more than exploiting existing and unintentional loopholes, they are actively bribing Gary Gygax to adjust the rules in their favor. A better analogy, to me at least, is of a poker tournament where the current chip leader gets to stack the deck every hand.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

but get right down to it, they want to be the guy in charge, giving orders - particular orders that benefit *them*. Despite their protests to the contrary, they are happy with things the way they are now because this is the system that benefits them the most.

As much as I advocate limited government, I think this is just wacky conspiracy shit. Let's take Obama as an example. Here's a guy who already is very wealthy because of his books. Whenever he leaves office, he'll make gobs and gobs of money in speaking fees, and there would be any number of organizations begging to have him affiliate with them.

The personal benefit to him of his policies is miniscule. And as much as I detest the man's policies, I don't believe for a moment that his primary motive is personal financial gain. It simply makes no sense. And that also applies to a great many other members of Congress who already are independently wealthy, have guaranteed pensions, etc.. Sure, some of the self-deal, but that's not the real problem.

Some of them are motivated by a genuine belief that they are right, and that their ideas are good for the country. Some are motivated by the attraction of power itself. But most of them are already past the point where rigging "the system" provides them with a significant amount of personal benefit, because most of them are already committed to their lives as professional politicians.

[awesome possum]

It's customary to make more than one post before employing ad hominems. I'll forgive you this time.

Um, what?

What irks me are people who think they know everything about a person when in fact they know nothing at all. Ron Paul personally prefers the gold standard, but he advocates competing currencies.

So he wants private entities to be able to print their own money. In other words, Walmart can just start paying it's employees in Walmart gift cards if they want. Hopefully property owners will take those for rent... but then I'm sure that problem will be solved soon when Walmart begins opening it's own apartment housing... all for the low-low price of 120 hours of indentured servitude per month.

I'm fairly certain I never claimed to know everything about Ron Paul, so you're wrong there. You're also wrong in saying I know nothing at all. I have the fucking internet at my finger tips, young man. I can know everything there is to know about anything that's not top secret in a matter of seconds. And I don't need to employ my Google Fu to know that Paul is - as Raidne so aptly put it - fucktarded when it comes to offering solutions.

He was practicing medicine during that time. Lew Rockwell was the editor.

Right, like I said. The newsletter that had his name plastered on it but he totally wasn't endorsing anything contained within this thing that had his name on it.

You're starting to look a little silly here.

[The Progressive]

http://www.grist.org...g-deal?ref=gnep

Damn job-killing government trying to save us from harmless fluff like mercury!

Estimates say something like 3000 lives 130k cases of childhood asthma a year stopped with this.

Suprised that this didn't get much more traction here .............. do people realize how huge this decision is for its future impact on public health and the environment? Did you know hard hard and dirty the coal and energy industry fought the EPA on this for almost two decades with untold amount spent in lawsuits and lobbying?

Then again, the forum seems to be full of useful tools who love to proclaim that there's no different between the two parties so I guess the lack of attention on victories like this is understandable.

[The Progressive]

What irks me are people who think they know everything about a person when in fact they know nothing at all. Ron Paul personally prefers the gold standard, but he advocates competing currencies.

Lol, hey I recall that you made the argument for "competing currencies" in another thread, then ran away with your tail between your legs when it was pointed out that people neither wanted nor willing to accept polar bears in exchange for a haircut.

The problem with Ron Paul's fanboys is that despite claiming to be hardcore libertarians, they'll always end up voting for the Republican ticket.

So I encourage you to do the right thing and stand up for your principle like Tormund and ........... don't vote!

[Fez]

As much as I advocate limited government, I think this is just wacky conspiracy shit. Let's take Obama as an example. Here's a guy who already is very wealthy because of his books. Whenever he leaves office, he'll make gobs and gobs of money in speaking fees, and there would be any number of organizations begging to have him affiliate with them.

The personal benefit to him of his policies is miniscule. And as much as I detest the man's policies, I don't believe for a moment that his primary motive is personal financial gain. It simply makes no sense. And that also applies to a great many other members of Congress who already are independently wealthy, have guaranteed pensions, etc.. Sure, some of the self-deal, but that's not the real problem.

Some of them are motivated by a genuine belief that they are right, and that their ideas are good for the country. Some are motivated by the attraction of power itself. But most of them are already past the point where rigging "the system" provides them with a significant amount of personal benefit, because most of them are already committed to their lives as professional politicians.

Never underestimate the power of greed, its what causes millionaires to harshly protest an effective tax hike of less then 1% that would be incredibly helpful to their fellow human beings in need. Or what causes some millionaires to apply for unemployment benefits. People are always greedy, even if they have plenty.

But in this case, no, I don't think most elected politicians (at the Federal level at least) are motivated by money; but they are motivated by a desire for power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. And why do they want that power? Because it takes a great deal of narcissism to run for office in the first place, and they want to be in the spotlight, making the calls. Look at the Republican Party since 2008, they have publicly stated time and again that their only goal was to take back both chambers of congress and ensure that Obama is a one term President. Why? Because they hate the economic policies the Democrats have put in place? Not likely. Sure the Tea Party folks don't like what's happened, but on economic issues (which is all anyone talks about these days) the Democratic Party of today is the Republican Party of 25 years ago. Establishment Republicans in private don't have any real problem with what the Democratic Party has done, look at how often former officials from the Reagan, Bush Sr, and occasionally even Bush Jr., administrations come out in support of Democratic proposals.

No. The problem Republicans, of the non-Tea Party variety, have is that they weren't the ones who got to give the orders, and they've been throwing a tantrum ever since. They want that ego boost. I'm not saying most Democrats are any better, but they've been in power recently, so they don't need to worry about it right now.

If McCain had been elected President in many ways this would be a very different country. We'd still be in Iraq, we'd probably be at war with Iran, Lily Ledbetter never would've happened, the Supreme Court would be considerably more conservative, DADT would still be in place, DOMA would still be vigorously defended by DoJ, the EPA would continue to be gutted, and so on and so forth. The past 3 years would've sucked a lot more then they did. But for the most part no-one talks about that, even though its all very important. And on the things that do get talked about? There would've been a healthcare law, probably not too different from what did pass, there still would've been a stimulus bill, and there still would've been multiple (maybe even clean!) raising of the debt ceiling. Those things wouldn't have changed, and if it had been a Republican president who did them you wouldn't hear a peep from most of the people complaining.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Iowa GOP just announced that due to "Threats from the Occupy Movement", they are moving their ballot counting to an undisclosed location. So I don't think you all need to worry about Ron Paul winning anything.

Why does the physical location of the counting matter at all in terms of the potential for fraud? Each candidate gets representatives at the counting of votes anyway, so the particular room in which that occurs is irrelevant.

[Galactus]

The Onion tells it like it is.

[Ser Greguh]

I really believe that something very psychological is going on w/ the right and the environment. What happened to the conservationist in conservative?

My best guess is that people on the right hate hippies and global warming so much that they've worked themselves into an intellectual corner where they must hate anything that sounds like it might be to combat global warming or be something that hippies might be for. How else can anyone explain being against safe water?

Think of it in terms of a defense attorney that doesn't actually believe his client is innocent but that stops at nothing to provide a defense. It may be a cynical attempt to make a buck at any expense, and there may be elements of philosophy in effect; everyone deserves a defense, there needs to be balance, etc. I'm sure many of them believe, in their heart of hearts, that the dirty tree-hugging hippies are trying to do everything possible to prevent them from making a buck, and are thus going to push as hard as they possibly can, which in turn justifies their own pushing back.

It's not exactly news that companies want the right to pollute (it's a lot cheaper to dump harmful chemicals than it is to figure out something else to do with them), and so it's easy to a) mount a cynical defense to propagate one's own greed, and B) confirmation bias oneself that the belief that they're not actually doing much harm, that the reports detailing the damages of said pollution are overblown, that dirty tree-hugging hippies are trying to dictate to you how you can and cannot make a buck.

It may not always be entirely unjustified, either; there are no doubt some EPA restrictions that are completely arbitrary and result in completely unfair restrictions; many are also calibrated (ironically) such that it's easier for huge polluters to comply than it is for smaller businesses, resulting in an often unintentional advantage. That kind of crap actually does happen all the time.

Say the EPA says you have to reduce Unobtanium emissions by x% necessitating an Unobtanium Filter. An Unobtanium filter costs $20M in initial mandatory parts and an additional $1M per phlebotum of Unobtanium that you need to have filtered. Big Huge Polluter needs to filter 20 phlebotums of Unobtanium and thus needs to spend $40M on their filter, a drop in the bucket to them. Tiny Micropolluter, on the other hand, only needs to filter 2 phlebotums, and has to spend $22M on their filter, which is more than they make in a year. So Tiny Micropolluter has every incentive in the world to fight the ruling because it is likely to drive them out of business, while Big Huge Polluter actually has incentive to support it because they know it will damage their competition more than it will damage them (whenever a Big Huge Polluter comes out in favor of an environmental regulation, it's helpful to analyze for that).

More often it's just confirmation bias driven by junk science intended to be misleading in a propagandized way. People don't want to believe that they're doing that much harm, so they search for any indication that they're not and accept those pieces of evidence while shrugging the counter-evidence off.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But in this case, no, I don't think most elected politicians (at the Federal level at least) are motivated by money; but they are motivated by a desire for power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. And why do they want that power? Because it takes a great deal of narcissism to run for office in the first place, and they want to be in the spotlight, making the calls.

I think that is largely true. But I don't think most of them are motivated solely by a desire for power, else you wouldn't have people running as Republicans in Massachusetts, or as Democrats in parts of Texas. I think principles/beliefs do matter to them to some extent.

Look at the Republican Party since 2008, they have publicly stated time and again that their only goal was to take back both chambers of congress and ensure that Obama is a one term President. Why? Because they hate the economic policies the Democrats have put in place? Not likely.

I'm curious as to how you know that. I'm a Republican, and I can tell you that most Republicans I know have been furious at the policies of this Administration. From the stimulus, to the auto bailout, to ObamaCare.

Sure the Tea Party folks don't like what's happened, but on economic issues (which is all anyone talks about these days) the Democratic Party of today is the Republican Party of 25 years ago.

First, a lot of Republicans do care about things other than economics, and the perception that Obama has been an apologist for the U.S. rather than an advocate doesn't go over well with most of them. Second, could you please identify in what respect the "Democratic Party of today is the Republican Party of 25 years ago"? Like, Nancy Pelosi's policies of today are no different from Bob Michel's in 1986? Really? Were you following politics actively back then, or is just something you've read somewhere? Do you remember how Democrats in general demonized Reagan for his hard-hearted conservative policies?

25 years ago, the tax rates were far below where they are now, yet Democrats now are pushing to raise them even more from current rates, which is taken them even further from where they were 25 years ago. 25 years ago, Ted Kennedy was pushing hard for universal health care, and blasting the GOP for only caring about the wealthy and not the poor.

Do you realize there was no Family and Medical leave act in the mid-90's? No Americans with Disabilities Act? Those were ideas opposed by most Republicans back in the 80's.

Establishment Republicans in private don't have any real problem with what the Democratic Party has done,

Really? If it is in private, how do you know about it?

look at how often former officials from the Reagan, Bush Sr, and occasionally even Bush Jr., administrations come out in support of Democratic proposals.

Sure you can find some Republicans who support some Democratic proposals. Just as you can find some Clinton Administration people who oppose what Obama is doing now as too liberal. Cue Dick Morris if you want to start somewhere.

No. The problem Republicans, of the non-Tea Party variety, have is that they weren't the ones who got to give the orders, and they've been throwing a tantrum ever since. They want that ego boost. I'm not saying most Democrats are any better, but they've been in power recently, so they don't need to worry about it right now.

The "tea party" Republicans are no different from the core of the group that swept Reagan into office in '80 and '84. What happened is that the "non-Tea Party" Republican politicians got blasted by a grassroots rebellion of people who were pissed that they'd moved to far to the left. So you're right -- their reaction has been political in a sense. But not because they're pissed they're not giving the orders anymore more, but rather because a failure to respond to conservatives within the party would result in them getting challenged in the primaries and losing.

If McCain had been elected President in many ways this would be a very different country. We'd still be in Iraq, we'd probably be at war with Iran, Lily Ledbetter never would've happened, the Supreme Court would be considerably more conservative, DADT would still be in place, DOMA would still be vigorously defended by DoJ, the EPA would continue to be gutted, and so on and so forth. The past 3 years would've sucked a lot more then they did. But for the most part no-one talks about that, even though its all very important.

Why do you assume that Republicans are unaware of those things, and that they don't affect the opinions Republicans have regarding this Administration? Go to some conservative websites, and you'll see people bitching hard about most of those things.

And on the things that do get talked about? There would've been a healthcare law, probably not too different from what did pass

Disagree.

there still would've been a stimulus bill

Would have looked completely different

and there still would've been multiple (maybe even clean!) raising of the debt ceiling. Those things wouldn't have changed, and if it had been a Republican president who did them you wouldn't hear a peep from most of the people complaining.

On this latter one, I'll agree with you for the most part. However, the difference is that conservatives generally are pissed because the debt ceiling is being increased without taking any serious steps to address the long term debt issue.

[Brienne the Beauty]

The Onion tells it like it is.

Sometimes I feel like the Republican candidates are like Jaime Lannister - lauded for their evil deeds and damned for their good deeds.

[Shryke]

As much as I advocate limited government, I think this is just wacky conspiracy shit. Let's take Obama as an example. Here's a guy who already is very wealthy because of his books. Whenever he leaves office, he'll make gobs and gobs of money in speaking fees, and there would be any number of organizations begging to have him affiliate with them.

The personal benefit to him of his policies is miniscule. And as much as I detest the man's policies, I don't believe for a moment that his primary motive is personal financial gain. It simply makes no sense. And that also applies to a great many other members of Congress who already are independently wealthy, have guaranteed pensions, etc.. Sure, some of the self-deal, but that's not the real problem.

Some of them are motivated by a genuine belief that they are right, and that their ideas are good for the country. Some are motivated by the attraction of power itself. But most of them are already past the point where rigging "the system" provides them with a significant amount of personal benefit, because most of them are already committed to their lives as professional politicians.

While it's a nice thought, the reality is that former politicians and former attempted politicians are stacked chin deep in the lobbying agencies and think tanks (ie - other lobbying agencies) of the US.

Most politicians don't retire on their already existant personal wealth, they go to work towards influencing government from the "outside" for even more lucrative amounts of money.

The only real exception is Presidents, who seem to have a tradition of going off and pursuing personal political goals post-office these days.

[Shryke]

The Onion tells it like it is.

This one is better imo:

Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn't Know China Has Nuclear Weapons

[Cuellar]

I really believe that something very psychological is going on w/ the right and the environment. What happened to the conservationist in conservative?

My best guess is that people on the right hate hippies and global warming so much that they've worked themselves into an intellectual corner where they must hate anything that sounds like it might be to combat global warming or be something that hippies might be for. How else can anyone explain being against safe water?

Because of marketing. Basically the corporations that benefit from shitty rules (like in China) say that the environmental regulations will cause a loss of jobs, molest their kids, or other stupid irrelevant things. And when people start hearing about job losses, they start freaking out. Take for example the US unemployment rate and consumer confidence. A decrease in the employment level from 96% to 92% is actually pretty marginal. But, the actual result is a loss in confidence, and people tighten their belts and stop spending. It's the FEAR, even if it is remote, that drives the behavior (and voting). So really all the companies need to do is create some fear, and voila free votes.

[awesome possum]

What happened is that the "non-Tea Party" Republican politicians got blasted by a grassroots rebellion of people who were pissed that they'd moved to far to the left.

Keep telling yourself that, bud, if it helps you continue to ignore the big ole fat racist elephant in the room.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Keep telling yourself that, bud, if it helps you continue to ignore the big ole fat racist elephant in the room.

You really shouldn't talk about the First Lady that way.

Because of marketing. Basically the corporations that benefit from shitty rules (like in China) say that the environmental regulations will cause a loss of jobs, molest their kids, or other stupid irrelevant things. And when people start hearing about job losses, they start freaking out. Take for example the US unemployment rate and consumer confidence. A decrease in the employment level from 96% to 92% is actually pretty marginal. But, the actual result is a loss in confidence, and people tighten their belts and stop spending. It's the FEAR, even if it is remote, that drives the behavior (and voting). So really all the companies need to do is create some fear, and voila free votes.

Because of marketing. Basically the corporations that benefit from shitty rules (like in China) say that the environmental regulations will cause a loss of jobs, molest their kids, or other stupid irrelevant things.

I'm not sure why you'd consider a loss of jobs "irrelevant", but leaving that aside for a moment, why do you think companies oppose those regulations?

[Ser Greguh]

I'm not sure why you'd consider a loss of jobs "irrelevant", but leaving that aside for a moment, why do you think companies oppose those regulations?

Um, hold the shift key and hit "4"?