|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A 2012 US election thread
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I can appreciate the desire to control the message, not wanting to state an opinion on an important and controversial issue smacks of political cowardice.
You repeat yourself, sir.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Sometimes it's just simply not the time to state XYZ opinion. Sometimes you're talking to an audience about an idea or range of ideas, and it will derail the discussion if you let a question -- or a heckle ![[Smile]](smile.gif) -- draw you off into tangent.
Sometimes you don't have an opinion. Sometimes your opinion is totally unrelated to the matter at hand and how you will deal with people in its light.
And sometimes it's cowardice. Just sometimes.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the Romney campaign is, for the moment, limiting the candidate to interviews only with local press, and then only if they'll agree not to ask him about Todd Akin or abortion. While I can appreciate the desire to control the message, not wanting to state an opinion on an important and controversial issue smacks of political cowardice.
Of course avoiding the national media is not a workable strategy in the long run, but the Romney campaign has probably calculated that by the time the Republican Convention is over the media's gnat-like attention span will have moved on to something else.
Obama went two months this summer without talking to the White House press corps, while making time for a hard-hitting interview with Entertainment Tonight. Seems like the go-to strategy for anyone running for office. Not that we have to like it.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I think we're back to Tom Clune's point about how elections should be about hashing out who we are and what we believe in, what we want to do and where we want to go, but instead are really about media manipulation and scare-mongering.
As for Crist, if he plans a run at the governor's office or a Senate seat, he'll probably be doing it as an independent -- he's no longer registered as a Republican.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
PBS just said the Republican convention theme is 'We Built It'. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And Chris Christie is the keynote speaker tonight so it can only get better. <rubs hands gleefully>
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
After watching the Republican National Convention, I've noticed that Mitt Romney's new name seems to Mittromney N. Paulryan. I don't remember Sarah Palin getting name-checked this much four years ago. It's almost as if it's been decided that Romney by himself is personally unappealing!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
PBS just said the Republican convention theme is 'We Built It'.
And Chris Christie is the keynote speaker tonight so it can only get better. <rubs hands gleefully>
So given Romney's shifting positions, the Republicans have built their house on sand? Didn't Jesus say something about that? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
If the GOP Powers That Be were sidelining us and squelching us and rolling over us wholesale, for a less politically correct reason, it would really blow up and something might change. But, it's OK to dismiss conservative Libertarian-leaning people who are perceived as mostly "non-ethnic".
Anyway -- I'm finding more of interest in the mind-numbing hurricane reporting than I am in the news from the convention.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From what I heard, Janine, they actually kicked the Ron Paul supporters out the door - presumably so they could say they had a unanimous vote for Romney.
.
[edited - anonymous <> unanimous!]
[ 29. August 2012, 02:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Well, this is interesting, if not surprising.
Romney campaign doesn't care if their ads are true.
If I express my full views on this particular subject, it will have to be in Hell. And I don't care WHICH political party is doing it.
How on earth can you have a meaningful debate about policies if you're not interested in accurately portraying the difference between policies?
But of course, campaigns aren't about actually debating choices and presenting voters with alternatives, they're simply about winning. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It's not that complicated--both sides will try to spin things, but these days Republicans lie much more often and blatantly than Democrats. And they feel entitled to.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
NPR political journalist Andrea Seabrook has quit NPR altogether, because she could no longer stand politicians lying to her daily. (Transcript there.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Well, this is interesting, if not surprising.
Romney campaign doesn't care if their ads are true.
If I express my full views on this particular subject, it will have to be in Hell. And I don't care WHICH political party is doing it.
How on earth can you have a meaningful debate about policies if you're not interested in accurately portraying the difference between policies?
But of course, campaigns aren't about actually debating choices and presenting voters with alternatives, they're simply about winning.
Meaningful debate debate died a long ago in politics. Even the illusion of politeness died when the parties tossed in giving each party a complete week of advertising, er, I mean convention publicity free of appearances or interference of any kind by the opposing party. They're both booked for appearances in the cities conventions are being held in as well as talk show appearances during these weeks. I doubt truth in advertising ever existed in politics. Anyone who bases their vote on TV adds is an imbecile - and based on how well attack ads work, I'm guessing we have an electorate made up of way too many imbeciles.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
NPR political journalist Andrea Seabrook has quit NPR altogether, because she could no longer stand politicians lying to her daily. (Transcript there.)
Love it.
Much the same criticism/frustration has been mounting here in the last couple of years. More and more people are saying that journalism has dropped the ball by merely repeating whatever the politicians and other players say, not analysing it. If I simply want to know what the main people on either side are saying, I can just read their press releases. I don't need it all parroted again by a 'journalist'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How on earth can you have a meaningful debate about policies if you're not interested in accurately portraying the difference between policies?
Please pardon the tangent but I've been meaning to compliment you on using the word 'breeders' in Hell some time back.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If the GOP Powers That Be were sidelining us and squelching us and rolling over us wholesale, for a less politically correct reason, it would really blow up and something might change. But, it's OK to dismiss conservative Libertarian-leaning people who are perceived as mostly "non-ethnic".
What does "politically correct" mean here?
ETA: moron, I'm not sure why you'd congratulate someone in Purgatory for a derogatory term they used in Hell.
[ 29. August 2012, 22:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It's not that complicated--both sides will try to spin things, but these days Republicans lie much more often and blatantly than Democrats. And they feel entitled to.
I've got a question for the folks here who usually support the Republicans.
Does it bother you that the Romney campaign is using, in its ads and speeches and such, a set of claims about welfare that it knows are false, because "they work"?
It's not just spin, it's blatant falsehood. The campaign knows it. And they admit it.
Is that okay with you? Why or why not?
Whatever your answer is, I'm not attacking you for it, and I'm not attacking Romney or his campaign for it. I'm trying to understand it. And this is the best place I know for reasonable discussion about this sort of thing. So please, if you would indulge me with a serious answer, I'd really appreciate it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Well, I don't answer to the description of your desired respondent. I do believe, though, that we've all been so suckered for so long with irrelevant side-, non-, and wedge-issues, we no longer have any idea about much except Our Side Winning.
I also deeply and profoundly resent the welfare ads; they all feature images of Obama looking as dark-skinned as they can credibly get by with, because many of the up-for-grabs states, mine among them, are all-but-lily-white, and vast swathes of the populace have swallowed the lie that "welfare recipients" are overwhelmingly "black," whereas the put-upon "taxpayers supporting them" are "white."
Fewer than 4% of the residents of my state are people of (any) color unless you count beige, but when someone complains about "those cheating welfare queens" in letters to the editor, it's always about "those blacks" or "people who don't even speak English" (illegalimmigrants is all one word around here; apparently there are no legal ones).
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
ETA: moron, I'm not sure why you'd congratulate someone in Purgatory for a derogatory term they used in Hell.
I hadn't observed a chance prior to that post to admire the chutzpah.
quote:
It's not just spin, it's blatant falsehood. The campaign knows it. And they admit it.
Is that okay with you? Why or why not?
No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
And I'm sorry that I come across skeptically but, for instance, you have repeatedly maligned Republican types here apparently oblivious* that your party is IMNSHO equally culpable of lying.
So is it OK when your side does it?
*Of course you could merely be winding up - who can say.
-----
And Rand riled them today - he's pretty sharp. Ron should be extremely proud, on several levels.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
[QUOTE]No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
And I'm sorry that I come across skeptically but, for instance, you have repeatedly maligned Republican types here apparently oblivious* that your party is IMNSHO equally culpable of lying.
So is it OK when your side does it?
The fact that both sides engage in bad behavior does not necessarily mean they are both equally culpable. That seems to be what passes for "fair and open minded" these days-- to match one grievance, no matter how heinous, with one on the other side, no matter how slight, and suggest that makes them "equal" and therefore a pox on both houses. Which only leads to cynicism and apathy.
It may be that the DNC is guilty of lying on an equal level as the GOP, but if so, I have yet to see it. It certainly cannot be claimed as a proven assumption, as you seem to be suggesting.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It may be that the DNC is guilty of lying on an equal level as the GOP, but if so, I have yet to see it. It certainly cannot be claimed as a proven assumption, as you seem to be suggesting.
FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
--Tom Clune
Examples? Bearing in mind that a negative ad is not the same as one containing deliberate falsehoods.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
No, I don't like any campaign spreading lies to convince people to vote for them. But what do you expect me to do beyond make that statement?
I could vote based on who I think is best for the country, given my experience and values.
Or I could vote based on who ran the less dirty campaign.
If we had a grand tradition of always telling the truth in elections and someone came out of one year and broke those rules, things might be different. But given that we are in a system where false statements are (unfortunately) the norm, and given that the decisions that the President makes are hugely important, at what point would a false statement rise to a level high enough so that it would be reasonable to allow reason two to trump reason one?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If we had a grand tradition of always telling the truth in elections and someone came out of one year and broke those rules, things might be different. But given that we are in a system where false statements are (unfortunately) the norm, and given that the decisions that the President makes are hugely important, at what point would a false statement rise to a level high enough so that it would be reasonable to allow reason two to trump reason one?
Dishonesty in the service of racism and racist stereotypes also has a long history in American politics. Some people consider that a breaking point, or at least a very unsettling preview of governing style. Others apparently can dismiss it with a shrug.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
It's not just spin, it's blatant falsehood. The campaign knows it. And they admit it.
Is that okay with you? Why or why not?
No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
Who ought to do what to hold them to account? What should the press do? Their supporters? Anyone else?
quote:
And I'm sorry that I come across skeptically but, for instance, you have repeatedly maligned Republican types here apparently oblivious* that your party is IMNSHO equally culpable of lying.
At the moment, I favor mostly Democratic candidates, but I am not a party-line voter.
And it is simply not true that the Democrats are "equally culpable of lying."
Unless you mean it in the utterly trivial sense in which a person who steals an apple and a person who steals a few million dollars are "equally culpable of theft."
As noted here, that "pox on both their houses" school of "neutrality" in political journalism is part of the problem.
quote:
Recognizing that there are no angels in competitive politics, recognizing also that our choices are typically binary, journalists can point out to voters (or at least the portion of voters who are users of political journalism) which candidate is stretching the truth more often or more strenuously. If it’s fair game (Blake’s term) to assess which candidate is connecting more effectively with voters or following a shrewder strategy, then it is equally fair to judge who’s being more deceptive.... Again: There are no angels in politics. We know that. Both sides mislead. But we still need to know who’s misleading us more because our choices are binary.
And right now, the side "who's misleading us more" is the Republican side.
It bothers me that a presidential candidate would consider "it works" to be more important than "it's true."
Ann Romney's statement that she thought it was good that some women have to work and don't have a choice about it was clearly not what she meant. Likewise with Mitt's statement that he liked firing people. The Democrats have pointed out such statements, and that's probably unfair. But that's the kind of thing that I think you can reasonably say, "Both sides do it." Razzing a national politician for being clumsy in making his point is rather like razzing the umpire at a baseball game. It's part of the political game.
But that's not what Romney is doing with the welfare ads. He's lying.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Are there Democrats out there who have the same whacked out "scientific" ideas that some Republicans have? I would guess there are probably some Democratic climate change "skeptics", but are there any Creationist / ID Democrats? Are there any Democrats making mis-statements of the order of magnitude of e.g. Akin's? I just don't hear junk sscience coming from the Democratic side (but I'll admit the possibility of confirmation bias, which is why I'm asking).
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It may be that the DNC is guilty of lying on an equal level as the GOP, but if so, I have yet to see it. It certainly cannot be claimed as a proven assumption, as you seem to be suggesting.
FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
--Tom Clune
I agree with this, but the Dems are going after any dirty laundry the candidates have and they're stooping using every little tiny slip of the tongue (why? there's been plenty of major verbal screwups this year) and exaggerating minor incidents. It makes them look desperate.
The GOP is the betting the bank this time on retaking Congress and the WH, not to mention the fact that the Tea Party is trying to force all of the moderates out of Congress so they are lying more and they lies are bigger. They have the ammunition of the economy. The Democrats need to replay the last years of the Bush Administration as well as the drunken sailor spending by the GOP majority Congress with Cheney's smirking "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". They need to provide data showing that the last round of tax cuts under Bush did nothing to turn the economy around and prevent the deep recession. They need to show the pain that deep cuts to Medicaid are going to make and provide data showing the true out of pocket expenses seniors will be burdened with with a fixed voucher/lump sum payment Medicare program. I've been deeply disturbed by GOP seniors over 55 saying "I'm for it. I won't be affected by it". They need to force the GOP to present what health care reform they're ready to put in place to assist Americans in obtaining and being able to afford insurance while cutting costs. If they do these things and cut the petty bullshit they'll do much better.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Are there Democrats out there who have the same whacked out "scientific" ideas that some Republicans have?
My sense is that Dem junk ideology is more along the lines of vegan tree-hugging crystal-worshipping animals-are-people,-too soppiness. There is also a lot of it-fits-my-ideology-so-it-must-be-true soft sciences, whether it is flaccid "studies" of the genetic determinism of gender or sexual leanings, the efficacy of single or gay parenting or stability of gay/interracial/interspecies marriages, etc.
I am not suggesting that any of the list is false, just that the "studies" generated in their support are junk driven by ideology rather than a dispassionate and rigorous search for truth. The tendency to replace a subservience to the search for truth with a self-aggrandizing enthroning of my preferences as the well-spring of all truth is not a Democratic or Republican flaw -- it is the mother of all human flaws. Or so ISTM (so it must be so).
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Last night a former governor of Minnesota insulted Obama and the Democrats by comparing them to tattoo wearers: Because they go for short-term glitz without thinking far enough ahead, in a few years we look at the results and ask, "WHAT were they thinking?"
That slur may or may not contain a grain of truth. The question I have is how far ahead was the speaker thinking to diss such a valuable segment of the electorate as tattoo wearers. From all I can tell, many of them are probably already in the GOP base. Maybe such statements have to do with why he is a formergovernor of Minnesota.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
We all know that, as human beings, we have a tendency to notice things that we agree with and to fail to notice things we disagree with. We also all have a tendency to excuse ourselves and "our side" of things that we'd find blameworthy in "the other side."
So think about your own preferred presidential candidate. What about your candidate makes you most uncomfortable? Where is it that you may be failing to notice things that should really concern you? What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
It's easy to say, "I'd never vote for your guy because ... " It's harder, and probably more instructive, to say, "I wouldn't vote for my guy if ... "
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
What I like most about Obama: He is a plain-spoken, straight talker.
What I like least about Obama: He has quietly expanded hi-tech governmental snooping into our lives. This hasn't received enough attention, and the Bush II administration was even more guilty, but it is insidious. I was hoping that he would roll these programs back as a friend of civil liberties.
But we don't have much of a choice here. For all of R & R's talk about "freedom" I don't sense any aversion to such techniques on their part. I haven't heard them even pretend to distinguish themselevs from the status quo in this regard. Ryan celebrated the Bill of Rights last night, but clearly he doesn't believe that it includes the right to privacy.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement? Let's say that you have examined the policies of the two candidates, you have seen stark contrasts between the two candidates, and you have determined that one definitely matches your views better than the other. Is there any lie that your candidate could tell without shifting a position that would cause you to vote against that candidate? Would it ever be reasonable, in your view, to vote for a candidate whose views on major policy issues you disagree strongly with, because the guy you agree with seemed, in your view, to lie more?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What about your candidate makes you most uncomfortable?
The fact that a guy who used to teach Constitutional law apparently doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anymore. He refuses to prosecute CIA officials for torture, allowing the "just following orders" defense of the indefensible. He thinks it's okay for him to decide to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without any due process of law. His expansion of the power of the executive branch well beyond anything allowed in the Constitution, circumventing the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us from such things, is truly terrifying.
quote:
Where is it that you may be failing to notice things that should really concern you?
Hard to say, though I wonder if the Solyndra failure is an isolated thing or the tip of an iceberg of systemic problems.
quote:
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
I think the civil liberties issues may push me into voting Green this time. If I lived in a swing state I'd probably still vote for Obama, but he's got California locked up.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I would heartily endorse all of Ruth's concerns, and add my fury that he didn't find anything to prosecute with the Wall Street thieves. It almost defies imagining that anyone could fail to find prosecution-worthy targets in the banking industry, the credit rating agencies, or the federal regulators. Absolutely everyone else who has looked at any of these has found a wealth of prima facia wrong-doing, but not our POTUS.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement? Let's say that you have examined the policies of the two candidates, you have seen stark contrasts between the two candidates, and you have determined that one definitely matches your views better than the other.
Part of the problem is that serial dishonesty can be an impediment to "examin[ing] the policies of the two candidates". To bring this example back to the specifics of the 2012 presidential contest, Mitt Romney is now plugging the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts while simultaneously promising to work for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which is just Romneycare writ large. Given the welter of contradictory statements issued by the Romney campaign, how does one go about examining his policies?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
This is exactly what I would do, Ruth. We see eye-to-eye on this.
Trouble is, we are all threatened with terrorist plots, and when government intelligence manages to prevent an attack, we heave a grateful sigh of relief. Any of us can easily encrypt computer media, or messages, using techniques whose designers swear would take a supercomputer years to crack.
I'm glad that we can do this. The book Crypto, by Steven Levy, telling the story of how a few public-minded genius hackers enabled us to do so in the face of government opposition all the way, makes fascinating reading. These guys are heroes and I'd never want what they did for us to be compromised or removed, even if it empowers our enemies as well. But it makes the government's ability sometimes to uncover a conspiracy and prevent a catastrophe cause for amazement as well as gratitude.
If it couldn't do this, how much more threatened would we be? I suspect that the threats are exaggerated, since people are so much easier to control when they are scared. But we can't be certain. If there is another attack like 9/11 or even worse, the survivors might not be much better off than the casualties.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement?
I think it would depend on the dishonest statement. "I never had sex with that woman" would not cross the final line. Other issues are more important in a president than marital fidelity.
I was about to list some places where a lie would cross the line -- but it's not the lie that would put the candidate across the line, but what he is attempting to cover up with the lie that would cross the line.
A pattern of lies, though, could cross the line for me, if it made me believe that I could not trust that his stated positions on the issues I cared most about were not really the positions he would take if he were elected.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
... A pattern of lies, though, could cross the line for me, if it made me believe that I could not trust that his stated positions on the issues I cared most about were not really the positions he would take if he were elected.
Here's a story about a former premier of BC. When running for election, he said he wouldn't sell BC Rail or interfere with collective bargaining. Immediately upon election, he leased the railroad for 999 years in a corrupt bidding process and broke numerous labout contracts; in his second term, he used back-to-work legislation and outlawed strikes or protests. Of course, the only people who opposed this were all those horrible, awful, greedy, selfish unionized nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc. (And the United Nations. And the Supreme Court.) In his most recent campaign for re-election, he promised he would not introduce a Harmonised Sales Tax. After re-election to a third term, he introduced a Harmonised Sales Tax. At that point, his supporters - who didn't give a rat's ass about the first two terms' lies - all of a sudden revolted and succesfully campaigned to roll back the tax (with great expense and difficulty). He and his cronies are now all deserting a sinking ship with their golden parachutes before the next election.
My point about this story is that his supporters stuck with him as long as he was lying about things that didn't matter to them. When he lied directly to them on something that did matter to them personally, he crossed the line for them.
If Romney (and Ryan too, apparently) are prepared to lie blatantly and repeatedly to gain office, there's no reason to think they wouldn't lie to achieve their policy goals. (Weapons of mass destruction, anyone?) His supporters have to take it on trust that his goals will always be their goals. His supporters have to believe that the interests of the mega-rich will always be the same as their interests. All I can say to that is:
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Part of the problem is that serial dishonesty can be an impediment to "examin[ing] the policies of the two candidates". To bring this example back to the specifics of the 2012 presidential contest, Mitt Romney is now plugging the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts while simultaneously promising to work for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which is just Romneycare writ large. Given the welter of contradictory statements issued by the Romney campaign, how does one go about examining his policies?
There is a difference between serial dishonesty and making contradictory statements. Either one can make it harder to judge a candidate, but a reasonably intelligent person can dig through the statements and find differences upon which to base decisions. Have Romeny's inconsistent statements left you with a lot of doubt about the difference between what a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency might look like?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
There was a candidate this year that I did not vote for in a primary specifically because he stated that he had a particular degree, when he in fact did not have the degree. That seemed so blatant that he lost any trust I might have had in him. There was also a recent candidate for governor who I did not vote for because he was shown to have accepted payment for a research paper that was later proven to be plagiarized.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
There was a candidate this year that I did not vote for in a primary specifically because he stated that he had a particular degree, when he in fact did not have the degree. That seemed so blatant that he lost any trust I might have had in him. There was also a recent candidate for governor who I did not vote for because he was shown to have accepted payment for a research paper that was later proven to be plagiarized.
Were those already your preferred candidates before you found out about the lies? Or were you still in the process of deciding when you found out about the lies?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
quote:
The fact that a guy who used to teach Constitutional law apparently doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anymore. He refuses to prosecute CIA officials for torture, allowing the "just following orders" defense of the indefensible. He thinks it's okay for him to decide to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without any due process of law. His expansion of the power of the executive branch well beyond anything allowed in the Constitution, circumventing the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us from such things, is truly terrifying.
Ruth, I think he refused to prosecute the CIA agents of torture, because he knew if he did that he would have to go up the ladder to get those who gave the orders, which would ultimately have included the previous president. To have prosecuted the previous president of war crimes would have torn the country apart, even more so than it is now.
To be sure, I would love to see the previous president tried for war crimes and would hope someone eventually does so, but it will have to come from another nation. Spain has been known to go after such criminals.
Second, the decision to go after Americans suspected of terrorism without due process has to do with the type of war we are in. When someone is deep inside the disputed territories of Yemen and it would take a platoon or more to go in and get him (meaning other unnecessary deaths) it is much easier to treat the person as an enemy combatant under the rules of war,
Third, while Obama has issued a number of executive orders, he has done so only because we have had a do nothing congress which refuses to work with the president. (In the last two years Congress has passed only 90 bills, the least any congress has done, ever). When you have one of the branches nearly paralyzed, you have to do the next best thing. Nonetheless, if the Supreme Court steps in and rules against the president I think the president will comply. BTW, the president's record on signing statements (which generally says a law does not apply to his administration) is much less than any of the previous presidents who have used such tactics.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
The Gubernatorial candidate was. The other guy was in a low-publicity primary that I had not made any decision on prior to hearing about the lie, but the lie was the determining factor.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
quote:
I would heartily endorse all of Ruth's concerns, and add my fury that he didn't find anything to prosecute with the Wall Street thieves. It almost defies imagining that anyone could fail to find prosecution-worthy targets in the banking industry, the credit rating agencies, or the federal regulators. Absolutely everyone else who has looked at any of these has found a wealth of prima facia wrong-doing, but not our POTUS.
Actually, the President has launched an investigation of Wall Street Practices. He ordered the investigation in January 2012. But it is my bet it will take years to untangle who was responsible for the collapse.
I also recall a congressional investigation that said no single person or group of person is responsible for the collapse. Rather, it was a systematic failure.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Have Romeny's inconsistent statements left you with a lot of doubt about the difference between what a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency might look like?
Yes, they have. I don't doubt that there would be several significant differences, but Romney's vagueness and self-contradictions make it hard for me to say exactly what they would be. For instance, Romney insists that he'd work to repeal "Obamacare", but also claims he'd maintain a lot of its provisions (e.g. coverage for pre-existing conditions). Should I believe Romney when he says he'd allow abortion in cases of rape, or when he says that he supports a Constitutional amendment that would forbid it without exception?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:
I would heartily endorse all of Ruth's concerns, and add my fury that he didn't find anything to prosecute with the Wall Street thieves. It almost defies imagining that anyone could fail to find prosecution-worthy targets in the banking industry, the credit rating agencies, or the federal regulators. Absolutely everyone else who has looked at any of these has found a wealth of prima facia wrong-doing, but not our POTUS.
Actually, the President has launched an investigation of Wall Street Practices. He ordered the investigation in January 2012. But it is my bet it will take years to untangle who was responsible for the collapse.
I also recall a congressional investigation that said no single person or group of person is responsible for the collapse. Rather, it was a systematic failure.
Yes, but everybody who isn't trying to cover their own asses has had no problem finding lots of criminal acts. This investigation of Lehman Brothers is one of the most objectively well-documented. FWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If anyone is wondering why the finance industry is not being investigated more thoroughly it could be because people in that industry are now and have always been major contributors to political campaigns. This time round, they mostly seem to be for the Republicans (the hi-technology sector backs the Democrats).
As these institutions have been in receipt of a lot of government backing it looks ungrateful at the very least. If only this sort of information was available so openly in the UK.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
