Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread

by **steagles** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 13:45:48

pacino wrote:Anyone catch this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew7A3s7n74c[/youtube]

bump. just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet/

by **dajafi** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 14:10:16

steagles wrote:
pacino wrote:Anyone catch this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew7A3s7n74c[/youtube]
bump. just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet/

How DARE any of you criticize McCain on foreign policy. Don't you know he's a war hero? They're only pussies, hypocrites or liars if they happen to be Democrats, like that Frankenstein guy from Boston four years ago.

by **Laexile** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 14:17:07

steagles wrote:bump. just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet/

Amazingly ridiculously partisan. If we took this at face value, then when Barack Obama advocates sending our troops into Pakistan he'd be the same as the Russians invading Georgia. To liken Georgia to a country with a brutal dictator who was killing thousands of his own people and violating UN sanctions to a Democratically elected government is a straw man argument being made just to be partisan. Using Cafferty's logic Obama should be condemned for sending troops to parts of Afghanistan where there are no Al Quaeda.

dajafi wrote:How DARE any of you criticize McCain on foreign policy. Don't you know he's a war hero? They're only pussies, hypocrites or liars if they happen to be Democrats, like that Frankenstein guy from Boston four years ago.

This argument would have some teeth if we didn't get "how dare you criticize Obama on foreign policy?" responses any time Barack is criticized.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:36:37

I'm still waiting for McCain supporters to give me 3 concrete things that will make the country better -- tangible policies, actions that support the case to elect him prez?

1

2

3

Tell us?

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:37:05

I'm still waiting for Obama supporters to give me 3 concrete things that will make the country better -- tangible policies, actions that support the case to elect him prez?

1

2

3

Tell us?

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:42:40

Here are 3 concrete things that will make the country better if Nader would be elected -- tangible policies, actions that support the case to elect him prez?

1 He would attempt to repeal the Taft Hartley anti-Union act

2 He would cut the military spending

3 Most progress toward single payer health care

by **pacino** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:46:40

Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:54:57

pacino wrote:Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

I didn't see any responses?

The question is not stupid, in fact, its the most important question we should be asking. All this talk of the "election season", obscures what really matters. I don't care about quotes and polls and strategies. I care about what either of these men will actually do in office. Clearly there are people on this board who are voting for Obama and for McCain, nothing will change their vote. So I'd like to know why they are so sure the person they are voting for is going to make the country better? That's not stupid at all.

I personally think the differences are there but they are small, becsause they are both corporate candidates and neither will siginficantly reign in the military spending and expansionism. There will be lots of platitidues but very little 'change', with either. There will not be singe-payer, there will not be cheaper gas at the pump, there will not be a new flux of quality jobs, the rich will get richer, and business will go on as usual. Patriot Act won't be repealed, political prisoners won't be released. Gitmo won't be closed and the 'terror' bogeyman rhetoric will continue as will the expansion of private police/military, and more and more encroachment on our civil rights and liberties.

I support Nader's policies because he would TRY at least, to break through the stuckness. Both parties have no vested in interest in doing anything much to change how things are, its self perpetuation and I'm bored and frustrated with the minutiae discussion about who said what and the strategy to see who can pull off the win. Each party simply wanting to have the White House, but not really capable or interested in changing any status quo.

I don't think there are any super-Obama fanatics here but if there are, I'd luv to hear why they think he'll do anyting and what it is? I don't think even the McCain supporters expect him to do anything novel or bold, but if they really think he's more qualified or has better policies, I'd like to hear how it will help people, the citizens, not just the corporationa, miliatry, neo-cons, evnagelitsts or upper 1-2% of wealth in the country?

Where do you stand Pacino?

by **drsmooth** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:59:18

mpmcgraw wrote: I think our military strength is a strong deterrent to future conflicts as long as you have balanced people running our country.

to think this you must believe the US faces serious military threats from a conventional nation-state or states.

that is ridiculous, of course.

plot for us if you will how "military strength" is going to provide adequate, or even any, deterrent to the more problematical asymmetric threats TV referenced above.

I'm sure he'd be willing to explain what asymmetric threats are for you.

by **Laexile** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:30:06

Philly the Kid wrote:
pacino wrote:Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

I didn't see any responses?

The question is not stupid, in fact, its the most important question we should be asking.

Except you're not really asking that question for the reason you should be asking that question. If you were planning on considering the answers and giving them thought that'd be one thing. You've given the board the impression that you're not interested in that. I could say that Senator McCain will enact comprehensive immigration reform. Yet all I'd get from that would be an answer like "he doesn't believe in his own bill" or something else bashing McCain. If you're request was meant to spur on debate and knowledge it'd be welcome. People don't see your motives that way.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:30:22

drsmooth wrote:
mpmcgraw wrote: I think our military strength is a strong deterrent to future conflicts as long as you have balanced people running our country.

to think this you must believe the US faces serious military threats from a conventional nation-state or states.

that is ridiculous, of course.

plot for us if you will how "military strength" is going to provide adequate, or even any, deterrent to the more problematical asymmetric threats TV referenced above.

I'm sure he'd be willing to explain what asymmetric threats are for you.

I know what aysmmetric war is.

You make think a war with Russia or China is completely out of the question. I don't.

by **FTN** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:33:04

Russia and China have nothing to gain by going to war with US.

Its really that simple, and it has nothing to do with the size of our military.

by **mpmcgraw** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:39:00

FTN wrote:Russia and China have nothing to gain by going to war with US.

Its really that simple, and it has nothing to do with the size of our military.

For now.

BTW Russia is arming it's naval fleet with nuclear weapons for the first time since the cold war because of our missile shield in Poland and possibly Ukraine.

Not a threat at all. :lol:

by **dajafi** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 17:53:52

Philly the Kid wrote:
pacino wrote:Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

I didn't see any responses?

steagles answered? and I answered?

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the famed conversational divide between "those who listen" and "those who wait to talk" should exist on the internet as well. Joke's obviously on us for putting some thought into your stupid, pointless question.

Maybe it's something in the California water supply?

by **philliesphhan** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 19:11:01

The best part is you both answered his question about three posts after his

and on the same page

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 19:29:47

Anybody who starts an organization like PIRG is at least as corrupt as Cheney.

by **pacino** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 19:31:26

I'm not sure if it's something in the CA water or if it's a self-selecting thing about the people who move out west.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 22:08:17

steagles wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:I'm not an Oba-mite. And I will vote for him over McCain mainly in dim hope that a Dem in the White House will slow the horror...

But I know there are some staunch McCain supoprters here and some staunch Obama supporters. So I ask this in earnest -- and don't parrot speeches -- tell me 3 ACTUAL things/policies you are certain that your candidate will lead/implement of the nation that you think justify his election:

Obama

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

McCain

1 ?
2 ?
3 ?

I'm sick of this minutiae about percentages and polls and this pundit and that spin-doctor, and this regional trend. Tell me what your man is GOING TO DO for the country that matters -- that is the foundation of your support for that candidate???

1) reinstitute governmental oversight of areas that have been left to the wolves since kennedy died. (congressioal oversight of the executive branch, SEC oversight of financial institutions, and judicial oversight, over anything else)

2) rollback don't ask, don't tell. i don't think this is an important issue to him, but i see this as something the democrats can easily push through congress, without his standing in the way.

3) push through stem cell research. it's not a given that it will cure every disease, or any disease, for that matter, but to ignore the potential is unthinkable, and to hide behind some ambiguous moral standard is pure jackassery.

i'll put a cherry on top for you PTK, 4) stem the growth of the military-industrial complex. i have no disillusion that he'll be a white knight and slash the budget in half by the end of the first term, but i think he can hold it's growth in check for as long as he's in office.

I completely missed this, I apologize to everyone. I thought I had gone back far enough and saw no reply? My bad... ( I'll get to Dajafi next...)

These are all major issues. Are you saying that these things will surely happen under an Obama leadership, or just possible? Will he lead or simply not obstruct should congress go in these directions? I'm not sure I see any of those things happening? Wishful thinking? Stem cell is still very controversial to the evangelical backlash. Why would w Dem bring in Exec branch oversight with Rep just ran rough-shod?

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 22:15:03

dajafi wrote:The power of the executive branch (as steagles seems to grasp at least in part) is fourfold: appointments to the judiciary, control of the bureaucracy (think regulatory process), the negative power to thwart Congress (or get out of its way), and playing the lead role in setting a national agenda.

On the first two, to get back to an argument jeff2sf and others have advanced against partisan voting, the nature and typical usage of these powers--which get absolutely no attention during the campaign, of course--is why partisan voting almost always is the rational course. If you want judges of a certain temperament and mindset, or you have more or less blind faith in "the market" to produce outcomes that serve the general good, that's almost always going to lead you to support one party or the other at the federal level based on its core philosophy. This is also where the Nader/George Wallace argument that there's no bit of difference between the two parties falls apart.

I'd had some hope that McCain, based on his previous TR/reformer incarnation, might at least do some of what steagles points out in #1. Pretty clearly, that's not going to happen. At this point I'm not even certain he'll be a clear improvement over Bush in this core regard: that government should at least be effective in what's considered as its limited purview. Obama, if nothing else, probably would appoint regulators and cabinet officials and agency staff who take their jobs seriously.

Anyway, if you take it as read that the Dems will maintain control of Congress, having Obama simply "get out of their way" will mean that a lot of things Bush has blocked--stem cell research, S-CHIP reauthorization and expansion, a drawdown of forces in Iraq--will go forward.

That leaves my fourth power, shaping the national agenda. (I'm putting foreign policy in this bucket, though it certainly could merit its own.) McCain has said "There will be more wars." The enthusiasm he's shown for open-ended commitments in Iraq, a belligerent posture vis-a-vis Iran and Russia and maybe China, and just generally the way he seems to perk up at the figurative smell of gunpowder suggests he is, at least in this instance, giving straight talk. And, in probably my biggest single disappointment given his history, he hasn't breathed a word that I'm aware of about pruning the unfathomably bloated Pentagon budget.

I actually don't think Obama has the political courage to take on defense spending; probably no Democrat would, other than maybe Webb if somehow he became President. (No Republican would because it's evidently axiomatic to them that defense spending is never "wasteful.") But he won't look eagerly around for new wars to fight. That's a pretty big deal. I also suspect he'd be much more assertive in ending torture, pursuing diplomacy where appropriate and re-examining some old orthodoxies (like the Cuba embargo), and emphasizing a pro-worker agenda in trade negotiations.

In terms of domestic/economic priorities, Obama has talked endlessly about universal health care and ending dependency on foreign oil. McCain shrugs away the problems of the health care system, and while he talks a decent game on oil, he couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote for the extension of the alternate-energy tax cuts he claims to support. His domestic/economic agenda boils down to more-of-same from the last eight years: tax cuts for the richest and irresponsible budgeting. His talk about spending cuts won't ever fly in a Dem congress, for better and for worse. Maybe you'd see some grand compromise on immigration along the lines of what he proposed a year or two ago... which of course would infuriate the Republican right. But I think that would be almost equally likely under Obama, who presumably wouldn't be as worried about what Malkin or Limbaugh "think."

This has turned into a PtK-length answer to PtK's question, but one last point: I think the single most important aspect of this election is for American voters to show the world that we repudiate the Bush legacy of torture, comprehensive politicization of government, economic irrationality and short-sightedness, and near-mindless belligerence on the world stage. Since McCain has chosen pretty much to embrace that legacy, he must be defeated. The way the race is playing out in the moronic media, it's all about Obama--but to me, this is still about Bush and the perversion of American governance he's perpetuated since 2000.

This is all good stuff Jeff. The thing is, I'm not sure what you are attributing to Obama, once elected. That he "won't stand in the way" or will he lead for changes. You describe the benefits to perception -- for example to world perception, but there's nothing I've read, heard or seen to beleive that Obama will really be making an major shifts to foreign policy, he will keep troops in Afghanistan for sure, I don't see how he will create single payer health care -- you are correct there is a more likely chance we'll get some professionalism and competence back to adminisitrative posts, and won't fill them up with Evangelical University grads... but is there one issue that he will lead that will equal his messaage of "CHANGE", I don't mean change in perception but Change in actual policy, budget priorities or something big like reigning in big business be it oil, WalMart, or Heatlh Care Insurance.

I'm not naive to think any one president can pass laws on his own, but a dynamic courageous politician who knew how to use the media to engage the citizenry and get them invested in things -- to feel a stake and results of outcome, could arm a crafty president in to actually making real change.

I don't see it. I see just a slightly softer gentler less neo-con, evangelical extremism and bold face lying, but a need to pander to the hawks and keep the corporate monarchs acquiesced.

I apologize for missing this response the first time out.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 22:19:18

dajafi wrote:
Philly the Kid wrote:
pacino wrote:Some people already answered your stupid questions. No one needs to justify their vote to you.

I didn't see any responses?

steagles answered? and I answered?

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the famed conversational divide between "those who listen" and "those who wait to talk" should exist on the internet as well. Joke's obviously on us for putting some thought into your stupid, pointless question.

Maybe it's something in the California water supply?

Whatever you think, in threads that I really care about, I read everyone's posts.

I simply have found the discussion here to have devolved mostly into a discussion of the day-to-day vagaries and high-points low-points of the campaign season. The McCain this and Obama that, hasn't really articulated to me tangible policy implementation. Who will be in Obama's cabinet for instance? How will the Fed be handled? What will happen with Russia? Cuba? Iraq? Military spending? Star Wars programs? Solar investment? Roads and Bridges? Union and skilled job creation? Housing costs?

He can say "singe payer" all day long so Clinton talk health care, instead we got NAFTA and GATT two things that failed to pass udner Bush 1.

He can say, plan to get the Troops out of Iraq, but this will bog down. Maybe he will pull it off in a 4 year reign, in fact, he'll probably need to if he would want to run for re-election. There will be many factors working agqainst OBama, but the biggest one, is that he's not really a liberal let alone a progressive. Republicans, most of them, are pretty slippery and often devious and evil, Dems are rarely that devious and mean-spirited, but in terms of how business is conducted in washington, how messages are presented to the populace, I don't see a lot of "change" under Obama.

Archived

Neoconservative Hipster Thinktank: Politics Thread