Re: Showtime in Charlotte

by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:50 pm

Thanks, Max. I do not say that the parties are "equal" but it seems the situation is just a matter of choosing lesser of the two evils.

I am aware that people like Krugman push for the things you've listed. (was just reading this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/what-krugman-stiglitz-can-tell-us/?pagination=false)

Obama's appointment of bankers in key positions and refusal to bell even a single Wall Street looter cat does put his administration in rather poor light. Why wasn't a single person arrested? Why were they allowed to pay bonuses when people were going bankrupt over the housing crisis? How can anyone feel comfortable with such an administration? Choosing one just because the other is a kook is not the best situation to be in, right?

by Idéfix Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:12 pm

blabberwock wrote:Superficial differences have to be maintained to keep the public excited.

The differences between the two parties are anything but superficial. Max has done a good job already of highlighting those differences on economic policy. In addition to those, we have Dodd-Frank, which does not go far enough, but Romney wants to repeal it while Obama wants to implement it. It is easy to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is much harder to build a coalition that can win and govern.

by Idéfix Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:20 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:democrats also want to cut spending by ending the wars and cutting defense programs deeply. republicans want to give the pentagon more money than the generals have asked for.

To add to that: it is easy to be a chicken hawk and send other people's children to their deaths in foreign wars. Romney took a deferment when the draft was in place to convert French people to Mormonism. Of the candidates on either side and their children, the only person to serve in the armed forces is Beau Biden, who served in Iraq. Obama's and Ryan's children are too young, and none of Romney's five sons served in the military. When you don't want to risk your own life or the lives of your children, you make up for that by throwing too much of other people's money at the problem.

by Idéfix Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:22 pm

blabberwock wrote:Choosing one just because the other is a kook is not the best situation to be in, right?

Democracy is always a choice between the candidates on offer, not the ones you wish you had available. Between the two choices we have, the Obama-Biden ticket is far better for America than the Romney-Ryan ticket.

by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:12 pm

panini press wrote:
blabberwock wrote:Choosing one just because the other is a kook is not the best situation to be in, right?
Democracy is always a choice between the candidates on offer, not the ones you wish you had available. Between the two choices we have, the Obama-Biden ticket is far better for America than the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Alright but that does not mean that Obama et al aren't corporate stooges - it is hard to have hope when he played right into the hands of the people who funded him the most - wait a min, that was the game, wasn't it?

Democracy should be about people being able to challenge the choices and not blindly accept the choices and settle for the less evil force.

Anyway, may Wall Street bless America!

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:20 pm

panini press wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:democrats also want to cut spending by ending the wars and cutting defense programs deeply. republicans want to give the pentagon more money than the generals have asked for.
To add to that: it is easy to be a chicken hawk and send other people's children to their deaths in foreign wars. Romney took a deferment when the draft was in place to convert French people to Mormonism. Of the candidates on either side and their children, the only person to serve in the armed forces is Beau Biden, who served in Iraq. Obama's and Ryan's children are too young, and none of Romney's five sons served in the military. When you don't want to risk your own life or the lives of your children, you make up for that by throwing too much of other people's money at the problem.

with the exception of 41 and john mccain the GoP despite its claims to be the stronger party on issues related to defense has consisted of chicken hawks. worse they have a long and honorable tradition of kicking fellows in the other party who have been war heroes to the curb. witness what they did to max cleland (which is one of the most nauseating things i had ever watched in a political campaign. i don't ever remember being as angry ever in my life before that or since then.) and john kerry. heck they even kick their own war heroes in the gonads if they are don't conform sufficiently -- case in point chuck hagel.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:33 pm

i think the max cleland episode might have been the instant in time when my political convictions became rock solid. i will never ever forget that. it has forever colored my opinion of the GOP. i remember thinking to myself at the time that there cannot be more vile assholes in the american political establishment than the people who run the GOP's political campaigns.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:24 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think the max cleland episode might have been the instant in time when my political convictions became rock solid. i will never ever forget that. it has forever colored my opinion of the GOP. i remember thinking to myself at the time that there cannot be more vile assholes in the american political establishment than the people who run the GOP's political campaigns.

Obamalu put it rightly about the GoP:

economy: cut taxes and deregulate and all will be fine.

health care: repeal healthcare and give voucher and all will be fine.

Entitlement: cut SS and Medicare give voucher and all will be fine.

Education: cut fed funding and give voucher and all will be fine

religious issues: cut health, education, and taxes, and give vouchers and all will be fine.

At this rate, the GoP may be onto some new breakthrough economic theory and might well win the next Nobel for econ.

by Obnoxious Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:29 am

panini press wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:democrats also want to cut spending by ending the wars and cutting defense programs deeply. republicans want to give the pentagon more money than the generals have asked for.
To add to that: it is easy to be a chicken hawk and send other people's children to their deaths in foreign wars. Romney took a deferment when the draft was in place to convert French people to Mormonism. Of the candidates on either side and their children, the only person to serve in the armed forces is Beau Biden, who served in Iraq. Obama's and Ryan's children are too young, and none of Romney's five sons served in the military. When you don't want to risk your own life or the lives of your children, you make up for that by throwing too much of other people's money at the problem.

Cant resist this one - ముడ్డి తనది కాకపోతే కాశీ దాకా డేకమన్నాడట.

English transliteration - If not his ass, the guy asked to scoot all the way to kaasi.

by Maria S Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:28 am

My perspective..

Lucky for me..both countries I have had the privilege of living..are democracies, and I absolutely knew/know..that NO Politician is perfect- and there always "powerful influences"- which are part of any Political equations- power structures..and "ordinary people power" has it's limitations. But, whatever "power" people have.. is enormous- enough to bring about
changes..if we are involved in the political process..with grass roots efforts, joining forces..and working hard to elect people we want to.

*We may not get every single wish-action granted , but, I know that..we can get some things accomplished whether it is on the local level, state level or national level..no matter people from which street try to block it!

So, I refuse to become cynical or become disconnected from the political process (although there are moments of disillusionment and disppointed) bounce back..will remain optimistic..and work hard for the next cycle of elections! And because there are many, many people who feel the same way..people who know the value of the right to vote and don't take it for granted..

I do still have lots of "hope"..as Pres. Obama said.."we did it" last time.. to give one example of one issue- many of us worked in grassroots efforts to- Reform Health Care in some small way..NO matter how many powerful forces as in Wall Street- Insurance Companies, Pharm Corporations (with hardly any help from- Yes the AMA) influenced this President..he "kept his word" was courgeous to go forward (the same as he did in many socio-economic issues).. and thanks to Justice Roberts and Other Justices..it is law now..obviously most of the economic issues are intertwined with social issues/"personal well being" and day to day living..so all of us have a huge say- must have a say in what we want..inspite of the opposition.

*This time the stakes are much higher and personal..Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (God forbid- anyone we love is/becomes disabled) Educational funding, Expanding Health Care)..after the "show conventions"..there is such clarity about the differences..between the two choices..it has certainly energized me to go out and work for it!

No one who has the right to vote..should become cynical and disconnected ever! Be pragmatic- involved on every level and vote, work to elect politicians- whether they believe in it or not will "for their own self-interests- to be elected again, will make it happen"..if you don't, don't complain and whine about politicians..

by Maria S Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:21 am

Always like to watch what Stewart and Colbert say..

*While both are funny in their own ways..if I had to vote- it will be for Colbert:)

Utterly silly and charming..never mean!

Even taking apart- "you don't know you are beautiful, that's what makes you beautiful" is rather cute Very Happy

!

http://www.colbertnation.com/

by Idéfix Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:22 am

I missed both conventions this year as I was overseas on vacation. Incidentally, I am going to be overseas on Election Day as well. Not being here during the conventions has stopped me from getting sucked into the details of what transpired, but my overall impression is that both parties put on good shows for their bases. I don't know if the conventions altered the competitive landscape much at all. The Clint Eastwood sideshow in primetime apart, both conventions seem to have stuck to their scripts.

I do wish Obama had specified more of his policy priorities for a second term -- his speech came across as "stay the course with the policies we are following." He needed to make a more persuasive argument to convince people that the policies are indeed working and staying the course will get us there. Romney's complete lack of policy specifics in his speech gave Obama an opening that he chose not to exploit. Perhaps Team Obama thinks this election is theirs to lose and they don't want to open up new lines of attacking by laying out policy specifics. But there is something wrong when both sides think this is their election to lose and refrain from setting out specifics.

by Idéfix Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:29 am

Silk Smitha wrote:
panini press wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:democrats also want to cut spending by ending the wars and cutting defense programs deeply. republicans want to give the pentagon more money than the generals have asked for.
To add to that: it is easy to be a chicken hawk and send other people's children to their deaths in foreign wars. Romney took a deferment when the draft was in place to convert French people to Mormonism. Of the candidates on either side and their children, the only person to serve in the armed forces is Beau Biden, who served in Iraq. Obama's and Ryan's children are too young, and none of Romney's five sons served in the military. When you don't want to risk your own life or the lives of your children, you make up for that by throwing too much of other people's money at the problem.

Cant resist this one - ముడ్డి తనది కాకపోతే కాశీ దాకా డేకమన్నాడట.

English transliteration - If not his ass, the guy asked to scoot all the way to kaasi.

that is so true.

by Idéfix Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:32 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think the max cleland episode might have been the instant in time when my political convictions became rock solid. i will never ever forget that. it has forever colored my opinion of the GOP. i remember thinking to myself at the time that there cannot be more vile assholes in the american political establishment than the people who run the GOP's political campaigns.

Yes, that was just plain disgraceful. The same tactic is being used against Tammy Duckworth now. Much too often, the GOP proves that patriotism as the last resort of scoundrels.

by Maria S Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:47 am

panini press wrote:I missed both conventions this year as I was overseas on vacation. Incidentally, I am going to be overseas on Election Day as well. Not being here during the conventions has stopped me from getting sucked into the details of what transpired, but my overall impression is that both parties put on good shows for their bases. I don't know if the conventions altered the competitive landscape much at all. The Clint Eastwood sideshow in primetime apart, both conventions seem to have stuck to their scripts.

I do wish Obama had specified more of his policy priorities for a second term -- his speech came across as "stay the course with the policies we are following." He needed to make a more persuasive argument to convince people that the policies are indeed working and staying the course will get us there. Romney's complete lack of policy specifics in his speech gave Obama an opening that he chose not to exploit. Perhaps Team Obama thinks this election is theirs to lose and they don't want to open up new lines of attacking by laying out policy specifics. But there is something wrong when both sides think this is their election to lose and refrain from setting out specifics.

By any objective standard the "production and cast" of the Democrats' Show, I mean Convention was better. Just from my observations..don't see too many in the Republican base in our deep Southern States excited like they were for George W. Bush and even McCain/Palin after the Republican Show-Convention ..*granted they will go to the polls and cast their precious vote for Romney- who they don't really like..and in reality the "swing states" will perhaps determine the outcome of this election.

On the other hand..think Bill Clinton (I think- even more than Pres. Obama) due to his performance at the convention, single-handedly has energized the Democrats base..in our part of the country..I see the base - various factions "more united" and energized now than one week ago..And imo, in a way- Pres. Obama did the right thing by being "real" and did not get too "wonky" - again, why be redundant- when Pres. Clinton..did a fantastic job methodically- point by point, issue by issue doing a rebuttal brilliantly- with facts, "Arithmetic" and communicate them..in a way an average voter can understand. Even I would have been bored with the repetition!

Anyways..after all that..this will be a very close election..

*The first Prez debate may have impact on the few undecided in swing states..

*A major event (related to foreign affairs or *personal matters of either candidate) may have some impact..

*Turn out, Turn out, Turn out on Election day..

Beyond that don't see anything else making a huge impact.

______

*How lucky for you Carvaka..hope you had a good vacation! Did you by any chance see Sara? I have been looking for Sara:)

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:05 pm

Maria S wrote:
On the other hand..think Bill Clinton (I think- even more than Pres. Obama) due to his performance at the convention, single-handedly has energized the Democrats base..in our part of the country..I see the base - various factions "more united" and energized now than one week ago..

that's good to know. if he can swing even one dixie state (i am still hopeful about NC) that'll be awesome.

Maria S wrote:And imo, in a way- Pres. Obama did the right thing by being "real" and did not get too "wonky" - again, why be redundant- when Pres. Clinton..did a fantastic job methodically- point by point, issue by issue doing a rebuttal brilliantly- with facts, "Arithmetic" and communicate them..in a way an average voter can understand. Even I would have been bored with the repetition!

i am not sure about that. in some independent quarters that speech may have come across as bereft of ideas. i wish he had reiterated some of the points made by clinton.

by Maria S Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

that's good to know. if he can swing even one dixie state (i am still hopeful about NC) that'll be awesome.

Oh, I did not want to mislead anyone and imply that there will be any swing states in the deep South(except for NC).. *I simply meant that the Democrat base seems to me more energized than a week ago..and more people may vote this time..(the enthusiasm gap has been narrowed-popular vote numbers will not drop).

by Idéfix Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:26 pm

I just watched Clinton's full nominating speech. Now I understand why Obama didn't go into details -- perhaps he thought he didn't need to. Clinton did a masterful job of explaining the shenanigans that the GOP is up to. This is the sort of details-rich speech that I wish more politicians made.

by Maria S Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:59 am

Speaking of bounces after the convention..*Safety/Secret Service concerns aside..(makes one think it was def. planned!)...and still...never thought the day would come when an US President would be picked up and bounced around with such enthusiasm (esp- any black man by any white man- away from sports arenas!)..a little too much touching and lifting, imo..but, looks like it was fun!

Kind of reminds me of crowds lifting and carrying popular leaders in India...with "Anna-Thalaivar Vazhga! Vazgha!'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57509143-503544/obama-gets-an-unexpected-lift-by-pizza-shop-owner/?stories

Excerpts:

Van Duzer, who said the pizza shop is the only place he's ever worked after opening it when he was 16, told reporters that he is a Republican who is "a big political person" but doesn't vote along party lines. He said he voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and will again this year. "I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him," Van Duzer said.
The president said he visited Van Duzer because of the "importance" of the work he does as a local- and nationally-recognized blood donor. "[H]e has galvanized and mobilized the local community and he's educating kids and folks all across the country on this issue," Mr. Obama told reporters, according to the pool report.

by Maria S Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:27 pm

I told you all about 'average" Southern Republican voters three days ago..just based on my observations..without taking any poll..(*kindly note that this article was posted today)..

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-national/?third_party=romneys-wealth-religion-hurts-him-among-southern-whites

Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced — despite all evidence to the contrary — that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.

So in this year’s presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance. “Romney’s going to help the upper class,” said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. “He doesn’t know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house.” She’ll vote for Obama, she said: “At least he wasn’t brought up filthy rich.”

White lower- and middle-income voters such as Harris are wild cards in this vituperative presidential campaign. With only a sliver of the electorate in play nationwide, they could be a deciding factor in two southern swing states, Virginia and North Carolina.

by Sponsored content