Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread

by **Woody** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:04:04

What do you think the White House is worth in terms of real estate. I'd have to think with those missile launchers it's probably up there

by **BuddyGroom** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:32:14

FTN wrote:
Woody wrote:I love how neither side focuses on issues unless it's in the context of accusing the other guy of not focusing on the issues.

like when we took Bakestar to trial over Canklegate

Extremism in the defense of Erin Andrews' "babe-aliciousness" is no vice. It just isn't.

by **philliesphhan** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:37:16

Laexile wrote:John McCain has staked out a position of "I can't bring all the jobs back. I can't solve all the problems. But I'll work hard every day."

So basically, McCain is gritty. He may ground out a lot, but by gosh, he'll run as fast as he can to first.

by **lethal** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:54:28

dajafi wrote:Futurama I think once posited that the VP debate should be a "You Mama So Fat" contest. That works too. Think about Gore-Quayle or Cheney-Lieberman getting into that; good stuff.

I still harken back to Benson-Quayle for VP debate humor.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:01:08

philliesphhan wrote:
Laexile wrote:John McCain has staked out a position of "I can't bring all the jobs back. I can't solve all the problems. But I'll work hard every day."

So basically, McCain is gritty. He may ground out a lot, but by gosh, he'll run as fast as he can to first.

Yeah, but is he gritty like Fasano, or like Rowand?

by **Woody** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:15:42

This is pretty interesting, to me at least.

Scott Adams--yes, the Dilbert guy--funded a survey of 500 economists to determine which candidate's economic plan drew the most support from economists. He's going to release the results soon

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/strange_feeling/

Voters say the economy is the most important issue to them. Foreign affairs will keep dropping down the list of importance now that the current administration supports a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. So how does a voter decide which candidate would be best for the economy?

...

I woke up this morning with the strange feeling that I might own the most important information in the world. Although 90% of voters have made up their mind, the race is so tight that the remaining 10% will settle things. If the media reports the results of my survey of economists, will it influence independent voters and thus the arrow of history? Probably not. But you can't rule it out.

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:37:57

I apologize beforehand for the length of this post. I promise I won't write many long ones like this anymore -- but I felt compelled to respond to Lax

Laexile wrote:You seem to assume that everyone else in America wants to live in your “utopia.” What you propose would create a country a lot of people wouldn’t want to live in.

Yes, the upper 5% of wealth wouldn't like it. But I suspect the overwhelming majority at least of the bottom 75% would, if properly informed be very much for it. Aren't we a majority rules society? Winner take all? You aren't for proportional representation are you? Eliminating the electoral college?

What I'm describing is a paradigm shift. You say the "laws" won't support it. Of course they won't, as they are written now. But who wrote them and in who's interest? People like you (whom I presume is a person not worth 100million or more even 30mil or more) forget that those Laws have no original foundation in anything absolute. It's totally made up. I'm not going to try to represent myself as a historian and political scientist, or philosopher. But land rights, owning property which translated to capital and got us the way we are today, has generated a country and world that still has class disctinction which has little to do with hard work and ingenuity. I'm not for rewarding the lazy and punshing the hard working and innovative.

I'm for stepping back and looking at the assumptions that the majority of people in the USA make today about how the country is supposed to operate. We expect air travel. We expect to be able to be from Philly and visit family in LA.

There was a stat some years ago, I apologize ahead if I'm mis-stating it somewhat -- but it said something like prior to Reagan taking office the average CEO in the USA made 40 times the average worker (at the time the average Japanese CEO made 12 X the average worker) by the end of the Reagan monarchy, and in to Bush I, the average CEO made 400 X the average worker.

I'm not suggesting we jump to a total socialist reality where there is no CEO and everyone makes exactly the same. And you are right, many people at first glance may not want to live in "my utopia", but I suspect given the full information, not being confused and distracted with false fears and bogeymen and had a system that was much more fair and balanced presented, that the OVERHWELMING majority of my country-men/women -- including many on this board who think I"m nuts ... would get on board with it.

The notion that companies would cease to exist and we'd have no products and services and jobs... is absurd.

I'm not saying I have it all figured out, nor that I'm qualified to be the leader of figuring it all out. But I'm smart enough to know it IS possible to figure out. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, nor ever of its own volition. The powerful are vested in holding on to their power. That's what extreme wealth transforms in to, it's not about money after a while, it's about power. Living in another manner than the majority of people. Being above the law in many cases or able to manipulate it with politicians doing their bidding to 'change' laws, or with elaborate lawyers and other techniques.

But this system is not one that can sustain itself, and sooner or later, after I and probably everyone on this board is long dead, this paradigm shift will be a forced hand. It may be bloody before its all over, but we cannot go on for 10K more years in a system that still has what amounts to Feudal Lords and serfs, Pharoahs and slaves, Plantaion owners and field workers...

There is always going to be a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Richard Branson -- someone who had a kernel of an idea or two, got in the right position, ritght place right time... made some moves and is held up as "you too can make it big, if you just have a good idea and know how to work the system" this is the myth that is presented to every school kid... and so people vote against their class interest and common sense. They accept having their water polluted or mortgage lenders with shady paper getting bailed out with theit tax dollars and no say about it.

I think there is a better way that could be conceived. I'd start with some basic things like getting workers educated and trained up and then put to work on massive infrastrucutre operations. I'd nationalize a number of things, I'd legislate a lot of new laws that made it unfriendly for unhealthy and unfair employers to keep our society toxic and workers down. And provide more safety nets.

Americans work harder and harder more and more hours, for less and less all the time. The myth that was the late 40's and 50's where you could have a nice manufacturing job or a small mom and pop and be ok cradle to grave, buy a car a tv and house and see the next generation go to college to get a better life, has collapsed. Prison populations have never been higher. The divide between peoples due to class and race has never been worse. A country this wealthy should never have the pollution, crime, uneducated masses and disparities it has. And that means real change, not Obama hyperbole 'change' as a slogan, will impact some of the Haves, and we need to re-conceieve some things. The right-wing fear mongers on talk-radio and TV will never allow the dsicussion to even occur.

I have friends visiting me this week from Spain. My buddy originally from Edmonton moved to Spain in 94 and is married to a Spanish woman who is here in SF for the first time. They love the city and enjoy their visit, and I asked them last night at dinner what perceptions they had so far and what they observed. She said it was wonderful the diversity she saw, all the restaurants of different ethnic backgrounds a variety of standard positives on SF, but she also was disturbed by so many homeless and poor she saw contrasted to the extreme wealth, the rudeness and lack of courtesy, the graffiti and dirtyness on buses and in general -- no care for elderly ... what she in her broken english called a lack of social awareness and sensitivity. This is anecdotal but impressions of someone new from another land can be revealing.

We can do better in the USA, and neither of our candidates are going to make that happen and lead that charge because whatever their differences, they are both owned by corporate interests. That's really not in dispute and neither has any prayer of downsizing the military in any significant way or declaring the "war on terror" is over.

It went from "the war on communism" then "the war on drugs" (didn't have as much legs) and finally "the war on terror". That's replaced the Red Menace, instead of a Bolshevik coming to take your free-man's land, it's a terrorist Arab who wants to blow up your church and school ... this has been manufactured.

I'm done.

by **Woody** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:40:56

Replies of this length are perfectly acceptable in the offtopic board, and especially the politik thread

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:41:10

FTN wrote:The problem is really fundamental. The government is polluted with partisan $#@! on both sides. These guys aren't "public servants", they are professional politicians. The goal is to continue to get re-elected. To do that, you collect earmarks for your district or state. The country is essentially run by the lobbyists. The more money you spend, the better. They can pass all of the laws they want, have as many ethics meetings as they want, but nothing will change. I've only really studied politics for the last 9 years or so, so I've spent the majority of my time focusing on Bush and the Republican Congress, and its disgusting the amount of garbage that has taken place, from misinformation to flat out defrauding the country out of millions of dollars. The Abramhoff + DeLay crap was absolutely unbelievable. And the worst part is, these career politicians are screwing us out of our money, and we're the ones that put them in office.

I hate going all ptk. But seriously. One only needs to look at the Tax Code to understand the way government works. Make it complicated enough so the average person just throws up his hands and says "$#@! it, I can't figure it out, yeah well", pay lots of lawyers to muddy the waters and cloud up the language, and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying to get laws tailored to suit your needs. The goal is to make people hate politics, then they won't be bothered to really read the fine print. When people don't read the fine print, you can practically get away with murder.

Its time to tear the place down and start from scratch.

FTN is a closet P-t-K-ite? Who knew...?

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:42:53

TenuredVulture wrote:I think another problem with politics, especially in the US, is its puritan heritage. And I'm not talking about the religious right. I'm talking about the way the perfect really is the enemy of the good in this country, and far too many people are on the side of the perfect. PTK (and this isn't really a personal attack, merely an illustration) is an example of this.

Look, it's politics. It's been with us since the beginning. It's a system based on our worst characteristics as human beings. TO say, "they're not concerned about the public good" strikes me as something like a parent upset because Santa isn't really going to bring presents for their kids.

I don't know what you want us to get from this analysis? "it's the way it is folks, don't be shocked or outraged ... jus tplay ball?"" ??? We can't do better? We can't change things?

by **Woody** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:46:53

ptk -- you realize that a household income of roughly $150-160k puts you in the top 5%, right?

Isn't that, like, the bare minimum required to live in San Fran?

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:49:09

dajafi wrote:Debate formats finalized:

The Obama and McCain campaigns released a joint statement today noting their agreement on three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. All four debates will begin at 9pm ET, and last for 90 minutes.

First Presidential Debate -- September 26 at the University of Mississippi
Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security
Moderator: Jim Lehrer
Staging: Podium debate
Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment

Vice Presidential Debate -- October 2 at Washington University (St. Louis)
Moderator: Gwen Ifill
Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties' Vice Presidential nominees are selected.

Second Presidential Debate -- October 7 at Belmont University
Moderator: Tom Brokaw
Staging: Town Hall debate
Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

Third Presidential Debate -- October 15 at Hofstra University
Topic: Domestic and Economic policy
Moderator: Bob Schieffer
Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table
Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate
Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

A good friend of my wife is involved with the Hofstra event. I might see if I can go...

My preference still would be for three debates, in this format:

1) A two-hour debate in which each candidate has a total of 55 minutes (with the moderator and commercials accounting for the other 10), which s/he can use however they see fit--but when it's gone, it's gone. This would somewhat showcase multi-dimensional decision-making and prioritizing; McCain, for instance, might want to use more of his time on foreign policy since he perceives that as his strength, but if he totally neglects pocketbook issues, he knows the media pinheads might get on him for it.

2) A two-hour "team" debate in which each candidate can bring two advisers to the stage with him/her, either to whisper advice or offer color commentary of sorts. This would give some insight into the sort of people the potential president would call upon for support, and also by inference how they make those decisions.

3) A drinking-contest town hall debate, where both candidates have to do shots every 15 minutes for the entirety of the two hours. Only the last hour would be televised, and ringers would be selected to ask particularly difficult/partisan questions for the last hour.

Futurama I think once posited that the VP debate should be a "You Mama So Fat" contest. That works too. Think about Gore-Quayle or Cheney-Lieberman getting into that; good stuff.

Bravo!

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:50:22

Woody wrote:I love how neither side focuses on issues unless it's in the context of accusing the other guy of not focusing on the issues.

I might vote for Woody as a write-in candidate -- you been "en feugo" recently ...

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:51:14

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo[/youtube]

Obama ad on the McCain houses comment ($#@! hell, what a turn around!)

McCain camp push back:
“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

The hypocrisy goes all directions. I hate that this is what it comes down to nowadays. Slick ads like these.

by **Philly the Kid** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 13:55:23

Woody wrote:ptk -- you realize that a household income of roughly $150-160k puts you in the top 5%, right?

Isn't that, like, the bare minimum required to live in San Fran?

I started with 1-2% -- need to look at the numbers speciifcally (yes, you are correct) -- the real point is that I used the term "perversely wealthy", and people rarely any of whom are part of that group no less, get all up-in-arms with the idea that those with so much should should pay the lion's share, even if it still leaves them with far more than the rest of us.... why? And the corporations get off the hook over n over n over, loopholes up the ying yang, corporate welfare dwarfs public citizen social welfare by orders of magnitude. I merely suggest there is a way to fund the nationizations and social programs. I also called for a reduction in militarism.

by **Macho Row** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 15:40:13

Chris Cillizza on the "Homes" Debate. Pretty good read on why both campaigns are going hard over McCain's comments.

Also an interesting note at the bottom. Cillizza says that if Obama was going to roll out his Veep choice tonight, then today's developments probably pushes back the scheduling. Obama's campaign considers McCain's comments "political gold" and don't want to step on the story by rolling out the VP nominee.

by **swishnicholson** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 16:00:48

McCain: No, no. Look. This house business -- it doesn't really matter. The houses aren't important. A few friends call me Seven Houses and that's all there is to it. I wish you'd ask me about the campaign. Everybody talks about the houses. They've got it out of proportion -- I'm a senator. I'm going to get rid of the houses. I'm fed up with them!

Host: Then you'll be John 'No Houses' McCain, eh?

by **dajafi** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 16:37:46

Macho Row wrote:Chris Cillizza on the "Homes" Debate. Pretty good read on why both campaigns are going hard over McCain's comments.

Also an interesting note at the bottom. Cillizza says that if Obama was going to roll out his Veep choice tonight, then today's developments probably pushes back the scheduling. Obama's campaign considers McCain's comments "political gold" and don't want to step on the story by rolling out the VP nominee.

Yeah, I was thinking about that on my way home just now. Was trying to get the internet on my iPhone to see if he'd announced the pick, and when I finally got on, I saw nothing. Then went to Kos, figuring if there was any new rumor it would be there, and saw something like four straight stories on "McCain's McMansions."

His problem is that if not today, then when? It's generally considered a bad idea to do anything on Friday if you want attention (that's why bad news is so often "dumped" toward the end of the day on Friday), then this weekend is closing ceremonies of the Olympics, and the DNC I think starts Monday.

Though I think he'd get plenty of attention if it happened tomorrow.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 16:39:32

Report Says Fire, Not Explosions, Felled 7 W.T.C.

Chalk another one up for sane people everywhere.

by **Woody** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 16:43:09

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF CRITICAL THINKING AND MAKIGN DECISIONS FOR YOURSELFVE

Archived

Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread