Author Topic: Election 2012  (Read 231889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #385 on: December 07, 2011, 01:14:38 PM »
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #386 on: December 07, 2011, 01:24:21 PM »
Let me address this point by point:
The thing with Ron Paul is he's always been a typical politician.
RP has been the sole NO vote on bills more than any other congressman ever. He has been talking about the monetary system since he joined congress and been the lone voice for returning to a gold standard. He never was a "team player" when it came to GOP vs Dems. So yeah, he's definitely a typical politician.

The mythology about him that he has some higher moral standards than any of the others really just comes from a couple of issues he's been vocal about, particularly his stance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which flew directly in the face of Bush & Company's neoconservative war-for-profit model of governance. 
Again, he's been the lone NO vote more than enough times to disprove this.

The only thing I can see justifying this kind of a claim is the earmarks he pushed for in a spending bill a few years back. He ended up voting against the bill in the end though, since it was a govm. stimulus bill.

But he doesn't do this because of money he gets from lobbyists. He's actually doing it for his constituency, which is more than you could say about almost any other congressman. Not that it was right, but that's as much you could find on him public policy wise.

Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist,
LOLNO. Non-interventionism =/= Isolationism. An isolationist wants to restrict foreign trade and protect domestic markets as much as possible, as well as not involving oneself at all abroad. Ron Paul wants to have free trade all around the world and wants the LOWEST tariffs possible. How is that isolationist? Just because he doesn't want to bomb, but use diplomacy he's suddenly an isolationist.

he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected,
Remember the debate a few months back, when people booed him? They were discussing the motives for terrorists, and he said it's because of a century of interventionist and occupationist foreign policy in the region. He was BOOED for speaking the truth, and his response was "I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was (for 9/11)".

and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
Well, this is purely subjective, and I must say it's very hard for him to articulate his positions so that as many as possible can understand his positions. It's too difficult to in one minute or thirty seconds, articulate a position that is so against the status quo.

It's not just silly, it's factually bankrupt.  You can't cut $1 Trillion from a $1.3 Trillion budget especially when almost $600 Billion of that budget is the military.  If "people who failed 4th grade mathematics" is a good constituency, then he's right on the money  :tup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
It's not 1.3 Trillion, it's about 3.8 Trillion and the revenue is about 2.2 Trillion. Yup, there's a 1,6 Trillion HOLE in the budget. It's about time some one puts a cap on that spending. Hate to say it, but your statement is factually bankrupt.


Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #387 on: December 07, 2011, 01:27:54 PM »
Um, I was referring to discretionary spending - which the ad I posted was referring to:

ItemObama administration request
 (February 2011)Department of Defense$553.0 billion (+0.7%)Overseas Contingency Operations$118.0 billion (-26.0%)Department of Health and Human Services$79.9 billion (-1.8%)Department of Education$77.4 billion (+6.2%)Department of Veterans Affairs$58.8 billion (+3.1%)Department of Housing and Urban Development$49.8 billion (+0.5%)Department of State and Other International Programs$50.1 billion (-0.9%)Department of Homeland Security$43.2 billion (-0.9%)Department of Energy$29.6 billion (+4.2%)Department of Justice$28.2 billion (-7.2%)Department of Agriculture$23.8 billion (-7.1%)National Aeronautics and Space Administration$18.2 billion (-6.7%)Department of Transportation$13.4 billion (-4.1%)Department of the Treasury$14.0 billion (+0.8%)Department of the Interior$12.1 billion (+0.3%)Department of Labor$12.8 billion (-8.3%)Department of Commerce$8.8 billion (-2.3%)Army Corps of Engineers$4.6 billion (-6.2%)Environmental Protection Agency$9.0 billion (-10.3%)National Science Foundation$7.8 billion (+4.6%)Small Business Administration$1.0 billion (-1.0%)Corporation for National and Community Service$1.3 billion (-11.1%)Disaster costs$6.0 billion (+200%)Other On-budget Discretionary Spending$44.9 billion (-3.9%)Total$1.344 trillion (-3.1%)

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #388 on: December 07, 2011, 01:28:48 PM »
You see, those departments that the absurd Ron Paul ad cites are all part of the discretionary spending portion of the budget.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #389 on: December 07, 2011, 01:31:21 PM »
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #390 on: December 07, 2011, 01:34:26 PM »
It's not pointing to discretionary spending. That's false.

See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

I thought we already went though why he's not just "saying thing in order to appeal". He's not saying it IN ORDER to appeal, he's using his positions without compromising his values, and still trying to get as much out of it as possible.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #391 on: December 07, 2011, 01:47:37 PM »
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #392 on: December 07, 2011, 01:52:24 PM »
It's not pointing to discretionary spending. That's false.


Wrong.

Here's a full transcript from the advertisement I posted above - these are the things Ron Paul claims he will cut in the first year:
What's up with these sorry politicians? Lots of bark, but when it's showtime, wimpering like little shitzus. You want big cuts, Ron Paul's been screaming it for years.  Budget crisis?  No problem!  Cut a trillion bucks year one.  That's trillion with a T. Department of Education?  Gone! Interior? Energy? HUD? Commerce? Gone! Later beurocrats!  That's how Ron Paul rolls.  Wanna drain the swamp?  Ron Paul! Do it!

Now, here's the Discretionary Spending Budget with those agencies highlighted:


The data I have cited is correct.  The TOTAL Discretionary spending budget for 2011 was $1.3 Trillion - Ron Paul is pandering to probably the Tea Party crowd with this advertisement because the claims he makes in it are patently absurd.  The DOD portion of the budget alone (also highlighted in line one) is $553 Billion, as I cited previously.  Ron Paul, first of all has as much chance of being President as Donald Duck. But even if he were, by some freak accident, elected President, he's got less than no chance of enacting a ridiculous budget like the nonsense spewed in that stupid Monster Truck ad - and that ad is precisely why I am saying he's no different than any other politician. 

I know people like the guy, and yes, he does have some principles like standing strong on cutting spending (except for earmarks for Texas  :lol )

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7127
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #393 on: December 07, 2011, 02:04:46 PM »
I can overlook all that momentarily and try to find out: which Republican candidate is better than Ron Paul? I'm wondering what the anti-RP crowd are thinking.
Cause if the argument is that they're all just as bad then this really wouldn't solve anything, they're still gonna have a candidate and about half the nation are still gonna vote for that candidate and he'll have as much chance of winning as the Democratic candidate. Reach across the aisle people :lol
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #394 on: December 07, 2011, 02:11:12 PM »
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.

I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too.

And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. 

I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #395 on: December 07, 2011, 02:17:24 PM »
I can overlook all that momentarily and try to find out: which Republican candidate is better than Ron Paul? I'm wondering what the anti-RP crowd are thinking.
Cause if the argument is that they're all just as bad then this really wouldn't solve anything, they're still gonna have a candidate and about half the nation are still gonna vote for that candidate and he'll have as much chance of winning as the Democratic candidate. Reach across the aisle people :lol

Out of the group running now the only one I think is got some relative sanity is either Ron Paul (but he's unelectable and too weird on some stuff) or John Huntsman (also unelectable, mostly because he's not crazy enough for the Tea Party crowd)

If you want to BEAT OBAMA (and that's the point, isn't it?) I think Mitt Romney stands the greatest chance of doing it.  He was Governor here in my state for 4 years and I really can't say that I thought he was a bad governor, despite having plenty of policy disagreements with him.  I could never vote for him because he'll put conservative judges on the federal bench.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #396 on: December 07, 2011, 02:29:58 PM »
I don't wanna beat Obama... :sadpanda:
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #397 on: December 07, 2011, 02:42:09 PM »
I don't wanna beat Obama... :sadpanda:

Nor do I.  :)

If Gingrich is the Republican nominee, this could be a landslide similar to how Reagan beat Mondale with Obama carrying a larger vote than he did last time. 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #398 on: December 07, 2011, 03:02:28 PM »
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #399 on: December 07, 2011, 03:15:43 PM »
I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too.

And despite what others will claim over and over here he IS an isolationist. 

I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

Ok. Feels like we're just debating the definition of isolationism.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.

But whatever, as a matter of public policy, Ron Paul has got foreign policy RIGHT.


And, yeah - the cabinet level departments are discretionary spending - but NOWHERE in the ad did it suggest that the 1 trillion in cuts came only from those cabinet level departments. Did you even read this?:
See for yourself here, there's about 300B in cuts in discretionary though.
https://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

This is how discretionary spending would look like following Paul's plan:


Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #400 on: December 07, 2011, 03:19:53 PM »
Kirk, I have yet to see another politician at one of those debates stand by their principles even if it means being booed by the audience. For as many fair complaints you have about Paul, "he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected," is probably the weakest one you can make about him.

Right, because this ad is definitely "principled" right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA

 :lol

Come on, man.  He's a politician, just like the rest of them.  Saying whatever he needs to say in order to appeal to whoever it is he needs to appeal to today.

He's no different than Obama, or any Democrat either.  They all do the same thing.

Why haven't his positions changed much in 30 years then?

Dude, there is so much he could change about his platform to basically make him another "electable", "moderate", establishment Republican, a la Mitt Romney, or just a more mainstream candidate for that matter. If your accusation were true, he wouldn't stand at a Republican debate and tell the audience that we should slash overseas military expenditures, or let states decide on gay marriage.

I don't doubt that.  I don't doubt it one bit.  And I really, frankly, kind of like Ron Paul.  But he's a politician.  Look at that ad!  It's intelligence-insulting bilge.  A big fat piece of bleeding red meat bullshit tossed to the hard right Tea Party crowd because he's in third place in Iowa and needs to do something.  Which is precisely my point.  He's a politician, that's what these guys do.  He seems like a nice enough guy, but when you did a little deeper he's, well, kind of a kook too.

I don't have time to entirely dig through the articles you posted but what's funny is the author doesn't even really refute Ron's positions, just merely tries to smear him by making some connection to white supremacists ('Look! A commenter on a white nationalist website supports Ron!'...seriously?), even though he in no way endorses those groups or their ideology. I mean, I don't support Hate Crimes laws, or foreign aid (not just Israel's exclusively), but not because of anything that has to do with racial preference...So I just think that's a ridiculous connection to make. Even if you disagree with his positions, it's fine to debate the policies themselves; but don't merely demonize him because of unsavory folks that associate themselves with those views.

Quote
I really don't have anything against the guy personally, I just marvel at the legions of people who line up to kiss his ring and lots of them (not saying you or any other specific individuals here on this board) are not even really that aware of a lot of his policy positions.

But look, I agree the ad is silly and so are a lot of the die-hard supporters. I hold many of his positions but I agree he's not the greatest spokesperson for libertarian positions. But it's the first time a libertarian candidate has had some major exposure, so I think many are just motivated to take advantage of that.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #401 on: December 07, 2011, 03:22:47 PM »
If we would've had the RP from 1988 today, he would've smoked the entire field. He was way more articulate back then, he is becoming older and slower now.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #402 on: December 07, 2011, 03:36:22 PM »
*sigh*

Anyway, Mitt Romney decided to bail Donald Trump's debate!


Have I mentioned my love for Jack Cafferty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25HxU7O4lmg

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #403 on: December 07, 2011, 03:52:04 PM »
Yeah. I saw that clip. Cafferty is a great commentator.

I also think it's good Romney is distancing himself from that debate. Let clowns be clowns with Trump.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #404 on: December 07, 2011, 06:01:27 PM »
Other than that and the fact that he's a fairly strict isolationist, he's just a typical politician who will say whatever he needs to say in order to get elected, and frankly, in the last few debates he's sounded very much like a senile old man who can't put a coherent thought together.
I saw an interview of his on some Hispanic tv news show and he had been talking about needing to be stronger on immigration and such. The interviewer asked him why he doesn't give a different message for the Latino voters and he responded that he shouldn't placate people by giving them a different, inconsistent message just to get their votes. That's quite clearly not "saying what he needs to say in order to get elected."
Yeah, right, because he definitely wasn't telling that audience exactly what he knew they wanted to hear.  Nope, Ron Paul is the second coming of George Washington.
What the hell are you talking about? He was telling them the polar opposite of what they wanted to hear.

If you aren't following, he told a Mexican interviewer that he doesn't agree that a child of an illegal immigrant born here in the US should automatically become a citizen and was asked how he expected to get 35% of the Hispanic vote with supporting such a stance, since it's clear that most of them don't agree with him. Then he said he thought that he shouldn't cowtow to special groups and change his message.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 06:21:01 PM by slycordinator »

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #405 on: December 07, 2011, 06:10:27 PM »
Nosehair, please.

Em, why are people not allowed to criticize Ron Paul? If you don't like what nosehair or I have to say, then either argue with us about it or stay out of the topic. I don't see how just making these short, semi-spammy posts like "guys stop" is helping you make your point at all.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #406 on: December 07, 2011, 06:23:40 PM »
I can see where people are coming from with the 'principled' complements, and I'd generally agree with them for the most part. It's just irrelevant because I find many of the guy's views to be a ways to the right on the "sane/batshit insane" meter.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline MetalMike06

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1549
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #407 on: December 07, 2011, 07:28:59 PM »
IMO, I don't think it's unreasonable to accuse the status quo of being batshit insane either. (I mean in the general sense, not solely Obama) We've just grown accustomed to this system which keeps digging the hole deeper.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #408 on: December 07, 2011, 07:32:32 PM »
Nosehair, please.

Em, why are people not allowed to criticize Ron Paul? If you don't like what nosehair or I have to say, then either argue with us about it or stay out of the topic. I don't see how just making these short, semi-spammy posts like "guys stop" is helping you make your point at all.
What are you talking about? "Guys stop" When did I say that? Semi-spammy (are you, for some reason, still talking about your Nazi remark?) ??? Nosehair was making some crazy conjectures, I politely called him off; Perpetual Change, why don't you let people politely call people off? Do you always need to instigate trouble around here, you've been warned here lots of time, you know.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 08:39:15 PM by emindead »

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #409 on: December 07, 2011, 07:51:05 PM »
Em, I am referring to the fact that you are just saying things like "sigh" and "please" when people criticize Ron Paul, instead of actually joining in the discussion. Why is that? Is it laziness, or do you just love Ron Paul so much that you consider meeting his critics in debate to be beneath your dedication to him?

And what is a "crazy conjunction"? :biggrin:

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8986
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #410 on: December 07, 2011, 08:04:25 PM »
a "crazy conjuction" is when a "crazy" mod comes on and urges a "conjunction" between two or more users to avoid getting heated and move back to discussion
 :biggrin:

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #411 on: December 07, 2011, 08:45:14 PM »
And what is a "crazy conjunction"? :biggrin:
I dunno, but it is crazy!

When I say "sigh" or "please" it's a reply to his toooooooooooooooooooone. I don't care if he dislikes "the magnificent, can-do-no-wrong-let-him-be-heard" Dr. Ron -saviour of the world economy and instigator of peace- Paul. I would participate if comments like that could be avoided.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #412 on: December 07, 2011, 08:59:19 PM »
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.

He still didn't have to appoint all those wall street goons to his administration. And nothing was new about the speech except that he was slightly more sharp-tongued, which made establishment types like Reich wet in the nether regions for whatever reason. And I think it's a combination of the two things you mentioned, not only his sliminess.

It's just like...he didn't HAVE to appoint people like Summers, Geithner, and all those other Wall Street goons who paid for his election. 

edit: That Rick Perry ad. Almost makes me want to vote for Obama :lol

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #413 on: December 07, 2011, 09:10:30 PM »
Can't believe how much people are gushing over Obama's speech yesterday in Kansas. Like he's never used empty, meaningless populist rhetoric before.

Yeah, those big banks! Look what they did! It's wrong! Even though I take all their money and appoint their former executives and lapdogs to high level positions in my administration, you can bet I'll do my darndest to fight for you!

 I don't think you're thinking is wrong factually, I just disagree with the assessment. I don't see what was so new about his speech, it's the same old him. I think we're mostly hearing the same thing because one both Obama's (overcomed?) inexperienced and a completely corrupt and broken congress and bureaucracy; you seem to think it's more Obama's personal fault more, and he's a fraud.

We would have Elizabeth Warren heading up the Consumer Protection Bureau if Obama didn't have to deal with the treasonous Senate Republicans.

He still didn't have to appoint all those wall street goons to his administration. And nothing was new about the speech except that he was slightly more sharp-tongued, which made establishment types like Reich wet in the nether regions for whatever reason. And I think it's a combination of the two things you mentioned, not only his sliminess.

It's just like...he didn't HAVE to appoint people like Summers, Geithner, and all those other Wall Street goons who paid for his election. 

edit: That Rick Perry ad. Almost makes me want to vote for Obama :lol

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories. That's why health care reform, in the end, also had to heavily cater to corporate interests in the insurance industry. Because otherwise they won't back him, or they'll screw him later. And from the look of the last two years, they've opted with the latter.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #414 on: December 07, 2011, 09:25:44 PM »

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #415 on: December 07, 2011, 09:54:54 PM »

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #416 on: December 07, 2011, 10:29:20 PM »
We've just grown accustomed to this system which keeps digging the hole deeper.

Or from another perspective, people have gotten accustomed to not wanting to pay for the services they enjoy. What almost defines the right-wing side of arguments is the illusion that all those nice things they currently enjoy will reemerge magically, without any penny needed from the citizen.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #417 on: December 08, 2011, 12:31:07 AM »

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.

I don't know that he's a complete fraud, and obviously I can't prove it; it's just a gut feeling I have. His speeches, especially ones where he puts on the populist hat just ring empty to me. We need more of that when he's not trying to rally the base for votes. I know I rag on the president here like it's my day job, but I want to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He just hasn't earned that from me yet. And you know what? He won't have to.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #418 on: December 08, 2011, 12:49:06 AM »
Well really, I think the more important issue is going to be who we elect to congress. You could put the best person in as President, and he'd still fail with what we're given. Remember that the President also has to get Senatorial approval for all of his appointees, at least the big ones like Geithner (?). The reason we don' have a Senate Republicans are filibustering a lot of appointees, for no good reason, and in some cases you could argue it's better to have a corrupt head of some department, then no head at all. But the opposite would apply if we had a Senate that wouldn't approve the nomination of someone like Geithner.

That's true with a Republican President as well.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #419 on: December 08, 2011, 07:50:34 AM »

I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like he did. Nothing gets done in this country without Wall Street backing it, not even electoral victories.
What has that gotten us, though? Almost 4 years of same 'ol same 'ol. Someone has to break the mold.

Helps to know a thing or two about the mold to break it, but I think you point to some valid problems for Obama. In the end, I think it's really too short historically to say who or what Obama is, honest and incapable of addressing the problems with the power he has, or a sell-out politician like all the rest. Which is why I think some people are interested in what Obama is talking about now, becuase he's attacking Wall street and the establishment. Wallstreet isn't really supporting Obama too much this time around, and they also give to every candidate running, so it's hard to take their campaign contributions with too much weight.

Let's not also forget that Obama called out Citizens United shortly after it happened in his State of the Union. You basically need to prove to me that the man is a complete fraud, and I just don't see any reasons to believe that is true at this point.

I don't know that he's a complete fraud, and obviously I can't prove it; it's just a gut feeling I have. His speeches, especially ones where he puts on the populist hat just ring empty to me. We need more of that when he's not trying to rally the base for votes. I know I rag on the president here like it's my day job, but I want to like him and give him the benefit of the doubt. He just hasn't earned that from me yet. And you know what? He won't have to.

I mean, given that American politics is about the perpetual campaign, that's technically not even possible in the first place. And you know what? Over the course of his term so far, I've heard plenty of people (here at DTF mostly, but other places too) criticizing him for his non-electoral speeches too, for the same reasons you've given. So he can't really win either way, 'cause everyone is like to criticize him whatever the case.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude: