The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Norstal]

On a lighter note.

I like how FOX shows are liberal leaning and FOX News isn't.

...Wait a fucking minute. That means...oh FOX network, you're good.

[Cannot think of a name]

On a lighter note.

I like how FOX shows are liberal leaning and FOX News isn't.

...Wait a fucking minute. That means...oh FOX network, you're good.

Kent Brockman explained it in You Kent Always Say What You Want, but the video has been taken off youtube...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Oh, no.

I remember Nixon-McGovern in 1972. That was hopeless.

I'd put this more on the scale of Bush-Dukakis in 1988.

Dukakis in a tank being the low point?

As an aside -

Margaret Thatcher 1986 -



Turned out be on of the more iconic images of a UK Prime Minister...

[Alien Space Bats]

On one level, I can perfectly understand the "47%" scandal very easily. Mitt Romney has always exuded the odour of someone whose mentality is one of entitlement: he's entitled to his very posh education, his dad's rolodex, his first house (purchased for him and Ann by George Romney), his share portfolio to pay his way through Harvard, etc. etc.

On another, I just don't get it. In what world are food stamps, Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance "entitlements", but $8 billion annually in cash-in-hand subsidies to the big oil companies alone just the natural order of things?

The right believes that the poor are intrinsically lazy, while the rich are intrinsically industrious.

Therefore, the best way to motivate the poor to work hard is through deprivation. As their lives grow harsher and more austere, their desperation will keep them from reverting back into their natural sloth and instead keep them focused on their work, as only through work can they survive. The less they have, the better things will be for everyone throughout society.

The rich, OTOH, are different. They are motivated by success, and the more they enjoy, the harder they will work. Allowing them to have it all only whets their appetite for more, unleashing their creative energies for the good of society.

Ergo, it is in fact bad to offer food stamps, but good to offer oil subsidies. Reverse Robin Hood tax policies are the key to transforming an economy into a roaring engine of unlimited growth.

<pause>

Or so goes the theory. Personally, I think it's a self-serving crock of shit.

By the way, hilariously enough, Romney/Ryan's plan is a larger redistribution of income than Obama's is. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it:

This budget is Robin Hood in reverse -- on steroids," said Robert Greenstein, the center's president, when the Ryan plan was announced. "It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times.

So let's see which Robin Hood is better for the country. One that increases inequality and digs the poor into bigger ditches, or the one that closes the inequality gap and gives the poor/working breathing room and the chance to rise?

Yes, but redistribution from the poor to the rich is a good thing, right? It's only that nasty, communistic, levelling kind of redistribution that should be opposed...

[The Mizarian Empire]

Personally I'm hoping for someone that can actually get the United States on the road to actually pulling itself out of the gutter. Its not going to get done in 1 term, everyone knows that. However if we could have even just one good figure in office that people listened to, respected and kept his promises, this country might actually not become the next roman empire in our lifetime. While I don't care where he/she/it comes from, I think it is accepted that the current 2 candidates probably aren't going to represent this shining beacon of American hopes.

If we have to elect a 3rd party candidate so be it, if we have to start replacing individuals in congress because they're too corrupt/blind to the problems the American people are facing, so be it. The American government is willing to bend it's own rules to it's own ends, I think its time we the people, the American citizens whom they represent and direct; took a bit of effort to make the "Change" Barrack Hussein Obama swore he'd bring with him into office.

[Magmia]

Personally I'm hoping for someone that can actually get the United States on the road to actually pulling itself out of the gutter. Its not going to get done in 1 term, everyone knows that. However if we could have even just one good figure in office that people listened to, respected and kept his promises, this country might actually not become the next roman empire in our lifetime. While I don't care where he/she/it comes from, I think it is accepted that the current 2 candidates probably aren't going to represent this shining beacon of American hopes.

If we have to elect a 3rd party candidate so be it, if we have to start replacing individuals in congress because they're too corrupt/blind to the problems the American people are facing, so be it. The American government is willing to bend it's own rules to it's own ends, I think its time we the people, the American citizens whom they represent and direct; took a bit of effort to make the "Change" Barrack Hussein Obama swore he'd bring with him into office.

[Alien Space Bats]

Personally I'm hoping for someone that can actually get the United States on the road to actually pulling itself out of the gutter. Its not going to get done in 1 term, everyone knows that. However if we could have even just one good figure in office that people listened to, respected and kept his promises, this country might actually not become the next roman empire in our lifetime. While I don't care where he/she/it comes from, I think it is accepted that the current 2 candidates probably aren't going to represent this shining beacon of American hopes.

If we have to elect a 3rd party candidate so be it, if we have to start replacing individuals in congress because they're too corrupt/blind to the problems the American people are facing, so be it. The American government is willing to bend it's own rules to it's own ends, I think its time we the people, the American citizens whom they represent and direct; took a bit of effort to make the "Change" Barrack Hussein Obama swore he'd bring with him into office.

Dream on.

Look, the GOP has made it very clear that they will only allow government action of any kind if they're the ones in charge. If it's not their man in the White House, they will stop up the system and just let things fall apart until the public relents and hands them the keys of power forever.

This is why I think that its necessary for the political power of the GOP to be shattered in order for the Nation to heal.

[PapaJacky]

The only real change, I think at least, that's needed is to step away from the microphone and read some scientific papers and studies on the topics at hand. It's no secret that if you based your policies on facts everything tends to go more smoothly than if you gimped it along the way with opinions.

[The Archregimancy]

Likely signs of disarray in an election campaign, part whatever:

Your campaign's co-chairman abruptly resigns in mid-campaign to take up a lucrative position in the private sector.

Former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty leaves Romney campaign to lobby for financial services industry

WASHINGTON — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has resigned as a national co-chairman of Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to lobby for Wall Street. He has also ruled out a run for governor or Senate in Minnesota in 2014.

The Financial Services Roundtable announced Thursday that Pawlenty will become its new president and chief executive officer on November 1. Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung told The Associated Press that Pawlenty ruled out the races as he prepared to take the job heading the Wall Street lobbying group.

“With this new position, Governor Pawlenty is taking off the table running for U.S. Senate or governor in 2014,” McClung said in an email. Pawlenty did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Pawlenty was an early entrant in the Republican presidential campaign, but he ended his bid last year after a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll. He was also a finalist to be Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

The Financial Services Roundtable said in a press release that Pawlenty was stepping down from the campaign because the group is a bipartisan organization.

Pawlenty was twice elected governor of Minnesota, in 2002 and 2006. His 2006 win was the last time a Republican won statewide in Minnesota. Now Republicans will be looking for candidates to take on U.S. Sen. Al Franken and Gov. Mark Dayton in 2014, when they will be running for second terms.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Khadgar]

Likely signs of disarray in an election campaign, part whatever:

Your campaign's co-chairman abruptly resigns in mid-campaign to take up a lucrative position in the private sector.

Former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty leaves Romney campaign to lobby for financial services industry

WASHINGTON — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has resigned as a national co-chairman of Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to lobby for Wall Street. He has also ruled out a run for governor or Senate in Minnesota in 2014.

The Financial Services Roundtable announced Thursday that Pawlenty will become its new president and chief executive officer on November 1. Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung told The Associated Press that Pawlenty ruled out the races as he prepared to take the job heading the Wall Street lobbying group.

“With this new position, Governor Pawlenty is taking off the table running for U.S. Senate or governor in 2014,” McClung said in an email. Pawlenty did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Pawlenty was an early entrant in the Republican presidential campaign, but he ended his bid last year after a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll. He was also a finalist to be Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

The Financial Services Roundtable said in a press release that Pawlenty was stepping down from the campaign because the group is a bipartisan organization.

Pawlenty was twice elected governor of Minnesota, in 2002 and 2006. His 2006 win was the last time a Republican won statewide in Minnesota. Now Republicans will be looking for candidates to take on U.S. Sen. Al Franken and Gov. Mark Dayton in 2014, when they will be running for second terms.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I believe they starting to note that the lower decks are filling with water.

[Oswald Spengler]

I hope President Barack Obama is re-elected, because Mitt Romney is a Liberal Fascist,would wants to neglect vulnerable people on welfare, and go to war with Iran, although Obama is putting the USA,in trillions of extra debt.

[Khadgar]

I hope President Barack Obama is re-elected, because Mitt Romney is a Liberal Fascist,would wants to neglect vulnerable people on welfare, and go to war with Iran, although Obama is putting the USA,in trillions of extra debt.

Romney is not a liberal, and possibly not a fascist. He's more of a corporate looter really.

[Salandriagado]

I hope President Barack Obama is re-elected, because Mitt Romney is a Liberal Fascist,would wants to neglect vulnerable people on welfare, and go to war with Iran, although Obama is putting the USA,in trillions of extra debt.

He's putting it in a lot less debt than anybody else would do. And what, exactly, do you disagree with from his economic policies (apart from the fact that they've been blocked almost completely by the Republicans in congress)?

[Northern Dominus]

Likely signs of disarray in an election campaign, part whatever:

Your campaign's co-chairman abruptly resigns in mid-campaign to take up a lucrative position in the private sector.

Former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty leaves Romney campaign to lobby for financial services industry

WASHINGTON — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has resigned as a national co-chairman of Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to lobby for Wall Street. He has also ruled out a run for governor or Senate in Minnesota in 2014.

The Financial Services Roundtable announced Thursday that Pawlenty will become its new president and chief executive officer on November 1. Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung told The Associated Press that Pawlenty ruled out the races as he prepared to take the job heading the Wall Street lobbying group.

“With this new position, Governor Pawlenty is taking off the table running for U.S. Senate or governor in 2014,” McClung said in an email. Pawlenty did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Pawlenty was an early entrant in the Republican presidential campaign, but he ended his bid last year after a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll. He was also a finalist to be Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

The Financial Services Roundtable said in a press release that Pawlenty was stepping down from the campaign because the group is a bipartisan organization.

Pawlenty was twice elected governor of Minnesota, in 2002 and 2006. His 2006 win was the last time a Republican won statewide in Minnesota. Now Republicans will be looking for candidates to take on U.S. Sen. Al Franken and Gov. Mark Dayton in 2014, when they will be running for second terms.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I believe they starting to note that the lower decks are filling with water.

Oh and that the galley's on fire.

[Samuraikoku]

Likely signs of disarray in an election campaign, part whatever:

Your campaign's co-chairman abruptly resigns in mid-campaign to take up a lucrative position in the private sector.

Former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty leaves Romney campaign to lobby for financial services industry

WASHINGTON — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has resigned as a national co-chairman of Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to lobby for Wall Street. He has also ruled out a run for governor or Senate in Minnesota in 2014.

The Financial Services Roundtable announced Thursday that Pawlenty will become its new president and chief executive officer on November 1. Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung told The Associated Press that Pawlenty ruled out the races as he prepared to take the job heading the Wall Street lobbying group.

“With this new position, Governor Pawlenty is taking off the table running for U.S. Senate or governor in 2014,” McClung said in an email. Pawlenty did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Pawlenty was an early entrant in the Republican presidential campaign, but he ended his bid last year after a poor showing in the Iowa straw poll. He was also a finalist to be Romney’s vice presidential running mate.

The Financial Services Roundtable said in a press release that Pawlenty was stepping down from the campaign because the group is a bipartisan organization.

Pawlenty was twice elected governor of Minnesota, in 2002 and 2006. His 2006 win was the last time a Republican won statewide in Minnesota. Now Republicans will be looking for candidates to take on U.S. Sen. Al Franken and Gov. Mark Dayton in 2014, when they will be running for second terms.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Which pays more? Wall Street, or Mitt Romney?

[Ashmoria]

Personally I'm hoping for someone that can actually get the United States on the road to actually pulling itself out of the gutter. Its not going to get done in 1 term, everyone knows that. However if we could have even just one good figure in office that people listened to, respected and kept his promises, this country might actually not become the next roman empire in our lifetime. While I don't care where he/she/it comes from, I think it is accepted that the current 2 candidates probably aren't going to represent this shining beacon of American hopes.

If we have to elect a 3rd party candidate so be it, if we have to start replacing individuals in congress because they're too corrupt/blind to the problems the American people are facing, so be it. The American government is willing to bend it's own rules to it's own ends, I think its time we the people, the American citizens whom they represent and direct; took a bit of effort to make the "Change" Barrack Hussein Obama swore he'd bring with him into office.

well there ya go. get working on it. you can replace 1/3 of the senate and the entire house in '14.

if you want it to come from outside the current system you are going to have to put in the effort yourself.

[Not Safe For Work]

Libertarianism is one of the worst philosophies I've heard of.

Libertarianism in itself isn't a terrible philosophy...

No, Libertarianism itself IS a terrible philosophy. It is inherently terrible.

[PapaJacky]

Libertarianism in itself isn't a terrible philosophy...

No, Libertarianism itself IS a terrible philosophy. It is inherently terrible.

Only under the Enlightenment assumption that all men are brutish and will lead brutish lives.

[Not Safe For Work]

No, Libertarianism itself IS a terrible philosophy. It is inherently terrible.

Only under the Enlightenment assumption that all men are brutish and will lead brutish lives.

Nothing to do with the enlightenment. The (one) advantage of having religious texts that stretch back over several thousands of years is that we know that selfish, brutish lives are the historical norm, not some recent assumption. There is very little that is 'good' in the libertarian platform, and much that is destructive to society.

[PapaJacky]

Only under the Enlightenment assumption that all men are brutish and will lead brutish lives.

Nothing to do with the enlightenment. The (one) advantage of having religious texts that stretch back over several thousands of years is that we know that selfish, brutish lives are the historical norm, not some recent assumption. There is very little that is 'good' in the libertarian platform, and much that is destructive to society.

Something to do with the Enlightenment in the sense that it was an assumption made during the Enlightenment by one Montesquieu. Either way, that is the operating principal that you're referring to Libertarianism in. This is the part where anyone can pull a "No True Scotsman" out of the bag and argue that under ideal circumstances, Libertarianism isn't bad. That's the flaw of Libertarianism, not that it's intrinsically bad, rather it's participants, humans, are intrinsically bad.

[The Nuclear Fist]

As their lives grow harsher and more austere, their desperation will keep them from reverting back into their natural sloth and instead keep them focused on their work, as only through work can they survive.

Work will set you free.

[Not Safe For Work]

Nothing to do with the enlightenment. The (one) advantage of having religious texts that stretch back over several thousands of years is that we know that selfish, brutish lives are the historical norm, not some recent assumption. There is very little that is 'good' in the libertarian platform, and much that is destructive to society.

Something to do with the Enlightenment in the sense that it was an assumption made during the Enlightenment by one Montesquieu. Either way, that is the operating principal that you're referring to Libertarianism in. This is the part where anyone can pull a "No True Scotsman" out of the bag and argue that under ideal circumstances, Libertarianism isn't bad. That's the flaw of Libertarianism, not that it's intrinsically bad, rather it's participants, humans, are intrinsically bad.

No, even the most ideal adherence to the principles of libertarianism would be bad. Indeed, to make Libertarianism look even vaguely attractive, you have to make an assumption that goes contrary to thousands of years of evidence - i.e. that people will ALL voluntarily place the needs of the community above their own desires. They won't.

The best examples of this are in the modern social safety net - things like programs to feed the poor, or provide more universal healthcare. Go back before America's social safety net, and there were people in America dying in droves from starvation and lack of care - and while it's not perfect yet, those effects are much ameliorated with the intervention of ('big') government programs. Thus, the evidence says that the potential always existed to help those people, who had real (mortal) needs, but it was not being done - people collectively do not voluntarily place the needs of others above their own desires - historical fact.

Libertarianism relies on the assumption that people are all selfless. If they were, they wouldn't be libertarian in the first place.

[PapaJacky]

Something to do with the Enlightenment in the sense that it was an assumption made during the Enlightenment by one Montesquieu. Either way, that is the operating principal that you're referring to Libertarianism in. This is the part where anyone can pull a "No True Scotsman" out of the bag and argue that under ideal circumstances, Libertarianism isn't bad. That's the flaw of Libertarianism, not that it's intrinsically bad, rather it's participants, humans, are intrinsically bad.

No, even the most ideal adherence to the principles of libertarianism would be bad. Indeed, to make Libertarianism look even vaguely attractive, you have to make an assumption that goes contrary to thousands of years of evidence - i.e. that people will ALL voluntarily place the needs of the community above their own desires. They won't.

The best examples of this are in the modern social safety net - things like programs to feed the poor, or provide more universal healthcare. Go back before America's social safety net, and there were people in America dying in droves from starvation and lack of care - and while it's not perfect yet, those effects are much ameliorated with the intervention of ('big') government programs. Thus, the evidence says that the potential always existed to help those people, who had real (mortal) needs, but it was not being done - people collectively do not voluntarily place the needs of others above their own desires - historical fact.

Libertarianism relies on the assumption that people are all selfless. If they were, they wouldn't be libertarian in the first place.

...which is what I've been arguing. Your whole argument is dependent on intrinsically bad humans, which is an evolutionary trait that's becoming less relevant as altruism takes precedent.

Again, no true scotsmen in the works.

[Not Safe For Work]

No, even the most ideal adherence to the principles of libertarianism would be bad. Indeed, to make Libertarianism look even vaguely attractive, you have to make an assumption that goes contrary to thousands of years of evidence - i.e. that people will ALL voluntarily place the needs of the community above their own desires. They won't.

The best examples of this are in the modern social safety net - things like programs to feed the poor, or provide more universal healthcare. Go back before America's social safety net, and there were people in America dying in droves from starvation and lack of care - and while it's not perfect yet, those effects are much ameliorated with the intervention of ('big') government programs. Thus, the evidence says that the potential always existed to help those people, who had real (mortal) needs, but it was not being done - people collectively do not voluntarily place the needs of others above their own desires - historical fact.

Libertarianism relies on the assumption that people are all selfless. If they were, they wouldn't be libertarian in the first place.

...which is what I've been arguing. Your whole argument is dependent on intrinsically bad humans, which is an evolutionary trait that's becoming less relevant as altruism takes precedent.

Again, no true scotsmen in the works.

No, no - my complaint is that libertarianism is inherently bad. The only argument that can be made that it is NOT entirely bad, is the ASSUMPTION that people are intrinsically SO good, that they will overcome all the shortcomings of the inherently selfish and socially-destructive ideology. History tells us this isn't true.

There's a subtle difference there, you're not quite seeing, apparently.

[New Chalcedon]

Libertarianism is one of the worst philosophies I've heard of.

Libertarianism in itself isn't a terrible philosophy

Libertarianism makes three key flawed assumptions:

Libertarianism assumes that people are smart enough to see the third- and fourth-order consequences to their actions;
Libertarianism assumes that people are thoughtful enough to take the time to determine the second-order consequences to their actions;
Libertarianism assumes that people are possessed of sufficiently enlightened self-interest to curb their first-order gains, in order to minimise third- and fourth-order losses to other people.

All of these assumptions are false. What's more, libertarianism assumes that externalities do not exist in transactions, that all transactions assume acceptably equal information, that capital owners won't collude at every opportunity to maximise their gains (profits) and minimise their costs (wages) and that no actor will set out to defraud another behind an umpteen-page-long contract.

All of those assumptions are false, too.

Libertarianism doesn't assume that people are generally good: it assumes that they are perfect, or near-perfect. Libertarianism is much akin to Communism, in that each will work when people are strongly enlightened, but not in the world we actually live in.

One need not assume that people are generally brutish, evil or stupid to believe that libertarianism just won't work.