News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

No relevent Republican candidates in 2012 for President.

Started by Callie Del Noire, February 28, 2011, 02:13:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callie Del Noire

Looking over the link that Valerian put up on another thread, this one here. (The poll is @ the 44 minute mark or so)

I looked at the dispersal of the 'potential' candidates and was depressed greatly by the 'Big 3'. I mean.. come on. Romney/Huckabee don't appeal wide enough, and Palin is.. I'm sorry, she's the biggest mistake to consider for President since Dan Quayle.

I mean looking at the spread..there are WAY too many potential candidates. Someone in the party needs to stand up and say 'I'm sorry..you've proven you can't pull it off' to Huckabee and Romney and a 'please don't' to Palin.

Time for the Republicans to push the deadweight and 'not possibles' out of the way. Too many of the 'old crowd' don't want to let the younger generation (the 50 year olds..lol) a chance to move up.

Callie Del Noire

The reason I am worried about this is that I've seen when one party has an unassailable hold on the majority that issues that should be discussed, debated and mediated aren't.

IE. You get folks like Nancy Pelosi working their angle without regard to others. (I use her because I couldn't throw up a republican equivalent AT this moment typing. I am sure there are plenty)

My belief has always been the general good of the public at large comes from the process of electing someone and having to build a concensus. Without a strong viable candidate that isn't going to happen.

Trieste

I doubt Mitt Romney will seriously appeal to the right wing anytime soon. He was the asshole who shoved through broken healthcare legislation just to be able to say he was responsible for mandatory healthcare in MA.

Shot himself in the foot with it, it appears, but the ricochet hit the rest of us in MA, the bastard.

Callie Del Noire

Yeah, but look at how big he is in the polls. Like Palin and Huckabee.. he's not a good canidate really but he's too big a tool to step aside.

Oniya

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 02, 2011, 05:35:50 PM
Yeah, but look at how big he is in the polls. Like Palin and Huckabee.. he's not a good canidate really but he's too big a tool to step aside.

Why does the phrase 'Bull Moose' come to mind?  I'm more and more convinced that people (candidates and voters alike) should self-identify a little more precisely than 'Democrat' and 'Republican'.  Heck, do away with the old names all together, come up with a handful of new party names and make people look at where they stand instead of seeking out the good old (D) and (R).
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste


RubySlippers

There is one - Jeb Bush the former governor of Florida he has the name and was a passable governor overall if a Republic one.  Add in another hitter like a woman governor or a woman who has held a military position of stature from a draw state you could have a fight on the presidency.

I only prey they choose a ticket with one of these two and Palin to give Obama the best chance to stay in we need to protect the health care reform that is the only issue I care about.

HockeyGod

I would not recommend giving anyone from Minnesota a second glance. We've got Brainless Bachmann and Pawlenty. The big saying during his administration - Minnesota used to be the land of plenty, now it's the land of Pawlenty. Successfully led to the first state shut down ever. Now that's a leader!

Jude

If the official Republican party ticket includes Sarah Palin in any way, I guarantee you Obama will have a second term.  I'd bet my genitals on it.

Shjade

Quote from: Oniya on March 02, 2011, 05:43:59 PM
Why does the phrase 'Bull Moose' come to mind?  I'm more and more convinced that people (candidates and voters alike) should self-identify a little more precisely than 'Democrat' and 'Republican'.  Heck, do away with the old names all together, come up with a handful of new party names and make people look at where they stand instead of seeking out the good old (D) and (R).
I like this idea, 'cause frankly, when under those umbrellas, neither party is appealing.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Oniya

*nods*  My point being that a) the parties are fragmenting enough that a 'new party' with a semi-popular candidate could actually have an influence on the electoral numbers, and b) the D&R's have gone so far from what they were originally, that Abe Lincoln probably wouldn't recognize a modern Republican, and Grover Cleveland wouldn't recognize a modern Democrat.  The names are placeholders now, and not very good ones.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on March 05, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
*nods*  My point being that a) the parties are fragmenting enough that a 'new party' with a semi-popular candidate could actually have an influence on the electoral numbers, and b) the D&R's have gone so far from what they were originally, that Abe Lincoln probably wouldn't recognize a modern Republican, and Grover Cleveland wouldn't recognize a modern Democrat.  The names are placeholders now, and not very good ones.

True, though both sides like to 'claim' their forebears in speeches even when anyone with two living brain cells knows said person would disagree with the useage.

Will

Quote from: Oniya on March 05, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
*nods*  My point being that a) the parties are fragmenting enough that a 'new party' with a semi-popular candidate could actually have an influence on the electoral numbers, and b) the D&R's have gone so far from what they were originally, that Abe Lincoln probably wouldn't recognize a modern Republican, and Grover Cleveland wouldn't recognize a modern Democrat.  The names are placeholders now, and not very good ones.

While they certainly fail to describe the positions of the people they label, I wouldn't go so far as to call them placeholders.  They represent two groups of people with an interest in keeping each other in power, at the expense of the other.  There's no reason to start up your own party if that just decreases the amount of support you have.

And that seems to be more important to them than the issues at hand, anyway.
If you can heal the symptoms, but not affect the cause
It's like trying to heal a gunshot wound with gauze

One day, I will find the right words, and they will be simple.
- Jack Kerouac

Noelle

I don't think using past standards for terminology is the best idea in determining if today's usage is appropriate. Language isn't a dead, static thing -- it evolves constantly to fit our needs and shifting attitudes, technology, and current events. It's not like either platform can run on the same issues for centuries, either -- upholding slavery or women's suffrage isn't exactly on the plate anymore, and in time, I'm sure a lot of present-day hot-button issues that seem to define parties at times will no longer be relevant, too.

Jude

Bit of an aside, but I'd like to throw in a little bit of a reality check for Reagan conservatives (but not anyone on this thread in particular).  You like to claim that you can't spend your way to prosperity and that racking up debt doesn't improve our economy, but under Ronald Reagan (who you claimed stopped a recession through conservative principles) the US added roughly ~1.8 trillion dollars in debt to an already 1 trillion dollar deficit.  Keep in mind that this was back in the 1980s so if you adjust that for inflation it's quite a bit more than what it seems.

Next you like to talk about how the head of the unions are parasites that exploit the workers via union dues and then bargain pay-raises out of corporations with unscrupulous methods so that they can increase their own revenue and live a lavish lifestyle.  I hate to break it to you, but before Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild.  They are a union.  Kind of paints his union-busting activities in an interesting, blatantly hypocritical light you might say.

Finally, you claim that by returning to conservative principles as communicated by Ronald Reagan our country will prosper.  Problem with that is, George W. Bush was basically the second coming of Reagan in a much less charismatic shell.  Bush campaigned on being a Reagan conservative and basically agreed with him on everything.  Conservatives often like to point at his spending habits as a way of claiming that the two diverged, but both men increased the debt by the trillions (though Bush more than Reagan -- I think, I didn't adjust Reagan's debt for inflation).  Try and name a few principles on which they differ; you're going to have a hard time.

So please, Republicans, if you're going to run for President on the basis of "no spending," integrity, or "returning to conservative values" don't call yourself a Reagan Conservative, don't say you're going back to the Gipper's Golden Age of America.  Just come up with some straightforward ideas, tell us what you're going to do, and stop cloaking it in symbolism.  It's time Conservatives stop relying on the goodwill that our nation felt for a dead guy 25 years ago.

Please, please, please come up with some new, good ideas instead.  Give me a fresh face with logically sound ideas that can make a single speech without talking about abortion, gun control, gays, or god and I just might consider voting against Obama in 2012.

Revolverman

To Follow up on Jude, Money, and how bad Reagan was, He was also the president who sold weapons to Iran (That death to the great Satan Iran?) so he could funnel money to the Contras in Nicaragua after both congress told him no more money, AND after it was found they were moving cocaine into the US.

That while Reagan was sinking billions into the US Drug war, paving the way for the US to be the most incarcerated nation on earth.

gaggedLouise

#16
Quote from: Jude on March 04, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
If the official Republican party ticket includes Sarah Palin in any way, I guarantee you Obama will have a second term.  I'd bet my genitals on it.


I agree, though I wouldn't quite follow in on the staking of my genitals. Palin is the most disastrous candidate any of the two major U.S. parties have nominated for a presidential election in the last twenty-five years, and the thought of her getting anywhere near the oval office would send chills down the spines of at least two out of three U.S. voters - and pretty much everybody outside the USA. She's such a fake - she may connect splendidly with part of the right-wing core republicans but she's unfit for the office and she doesn't stand a chance of getting elected. And as a VP candidate she's impossible after the 2008 campaign. No one on the central GOP level. I think, would want her name on the ticket.

I read Going Rogue and kept thinking "how can anyone in politics that's this ill-informed and unable to scrutinize her own arguments feel so entitled to be treated like a VIP?" Okay, of course when she wrote her book she was trying to throw off the burden of responmsibility for mistakes made during the campaign, but it seems to me she just assumes that if what she says is good enough to work as talking points on Bill O'Reilly's show, where she won't get any hard questions, then it's good enough for any kind of debate, event or conference, and anyone asking for moie is just making a personal put-down of her and her kind. That really won't work all through a presidential campaign, certainly not against Obama.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on March 06, 2011, 10:14:00 PM

I agree, though I wouldn't quite follow in on the staking of my genitals. Palin is the most disastrous candidate any of the two major U.S. parties have nominated for a presidential election in the last twenty-five years, and the thought of her getting anywhere near the oval office would send chills down the spines of at least two out of three U.S. voters - and pretty much everybody outside the USA. She's such a fake - she may connect splendidly with part of the right-wing core republicans but she's unfit for the office and she doesn't stand a chance getting elected. And as a VP candidate she's impossiblke after the 2008 campaign. No one on the central GOP level would want her as a co-runner on the ticket.

UNFORTUNATELY the party leadership is rife with fringe conservatives who think she's the second coming and she's got TONS of visibility with her TV presence. And these nut jobs have the balls of the leadership in a bag somewhere and have them thinking that is where their voting strength is. Go figure.


gaggedLouise

#18
Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 06, 2011, 10:20:42 PM
UNFORTUNATELY the party leadership is rife with fringe conservatives who think she's the second coming and she's got TONS of visibility with her TV presence. And these nut jobs have the balls of the leadership in a bag somewhere and have them thinking that is where their voting strength is. Go figure.

Palin may be a cynical countryside populist and many of her supporters may be subpar in political IQ, but considering how high-visibility tea party candidates like Chris O'Donnell and Carl Paladino (both of them strongly backed by Palin)  bombed in the elections last fall, I reckon the GOP leadership will fight to the death not to have Palin on the ticket. They _know_ she is unsellable to a safe majority of the American voters - and that she would become one of the best arguments the Democrats could ask for.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on March 06, 2011, 10:40:35 PM
Palin may be a cynical countryside populist and many of her supporters may be subpar in political IQ, but considering how high-visibility tea party candidates like Chris O'Donnell and Carl Paladino (both of them strongöly backed by Palin)  bombed in the elections last fall, I reckon the GOP leadership will fight to the death not to have Palin on the ticket. They _know_ she is unsellable to a safe majority of the American voters - and that she would become one of the best arguments the Democrats could ask for.

I'd like to agree.. really, but she's got an 'in' with the old school members of the party and they don't want to lose power. I saw it when my brother ran for office on the state level  and I saw it in the candidates they backed in several other states. Younger, more savvy candidates seem to scare them since they don't 'belong' to the party in some areas. Some, HORRORS, aren't career politicians and have actually EARNED their own money before trying to run for office. That was one of the big things the folks at the state level kept throwing at my brother when he ran. 'Outsider', 'inexperienced' and the inference that he was a 'mock republican' because as a trial lawyer he backed DEMOCRAT judges over ones he'd never dealt with. Well duh! If you know what works with a judge, are you going to risk something that puts your client's welfare at risk?

A lot of good potential candidates on either party aren't coming forward because the 'old guard' won't step aside. That and they dont' want every damn little mistake they ever made microscopically examined by the media. Colin Powell wouldn't run because he didn't think it was worth it due to the strain on his wife.


Elle Mental

Granted that he may not even run and that he is completely unelectable as president, but Ron Paul would honestly be the most entertaining candidate for president, in 2012. Whether you like his political outlook or not, is there really anyone that could be preferred over the list that we have going with Huckabee, Romney, Palin or even Trump?

I don't know...I'm just disenfranchised.

adifferenceinsize

Quote from: Elle Mental on March 07, 2011, 07:41:16 AM
Granted that he may not even run and that he is completely unelectable as president, but Ron Paul would honestly be the most entertaining candidate for president, in 2012. Whether you like his political outlook or not, is there really anyone that could be preferred over the list that we have going with Huckabee, Romney, Palin or even Trump?

I don't know...I'm just disenfranchised.

I'd put myself in the camp with Lawrence O'Donnell that the best bet the Republicans would have against Obama is Tim Pawlenty. He's set himself up well as someone who can do the good ol' Right-Center jig, and he's the only one of the pack who doesn't have a glaring weakness that would make the general election particularly contentious. Against Obama, you'd basically have to repeat the Republican 2010 formula of "referendum on things the voter doesn't like" rather than having a particularly powerful figure at the helm in opposition. A Trump or Christie makes it too hard to ignore the fact that the other vote isn't "NOT OBAMA" through sheer dint of their personalities, while the others have flaws the Democratic party can use to make the election a choice of shit vs. crap.

On the notion of Sarah Palin running... no. She and Newt Gingrich are among those who have figured out that there is a LOT of money to be made in the perennial could-be-candidate racket. Actually running again would wreck that now that she's a known figure, whereas toying with the notion as long as possible gets to let her sell books and collect donations that aren't as strictly controlled as when she actually runs for an office.

With that note, there's something to consider when talk of a third party or independent movement kicks up. There's a very fundamental problem with our politics, beyond the talk, the rhetoric, and all that, right in the base mathematics. See, what we have as a two-party system comes right out of the game theory for our voting system. Because one person must obtain a majority vote to be elected, especially in larger reaching offices like senatorial or presidential bids, the mechanics of our system force any vote into effectively a two-man contest by default. The theory of Nader or Perot spoilers come through based on this, and even the mish-mash makeups of the modern political parties reflects the harsh reality that because the US doesn't have a parliamentary layout to its representative bodies and runs a single straight vote system for elections, the ideal situation for everyone is to be one of the two stable competitors. Worse, even if an independent candidate can usurp one party or split the difference between the Republican and Democrat in a state vote, the oddities of the Electoral College make it nearly impossible for anyone to win in the modern era outside of the two-party situation. In short, always root for an insurgent candidate on the opposing side of an election, because the sheer weight of the system atop our voting system makes them just implicit help for your side.

Oniya

Quote from: adifferenceinsize on March 07, 2011, 11:10:49 PM
With that note, there's something to consider when talk of a third party or independent movement kicks up. There's a very fundamental problem with our politics, beyond the talk, the rhetoric, and all that, right in the base mathematics. See, what we have as a two-party system comes right out of the game theory for our voting system. Because one person must obtain a majority vote to be elected, especially in larger reaching offices like senatorial or presidential bids, the mechanics of our system force any vote into effectively a two-man contest by default. The theory of Nader or Perot spoilers come through based on this, and even the mish-mash makeups of the modern political parties reflects the harsh reality that because the US doesn't have a parliamentary layout to its representative bodies and runs a single straight vote system for elections, the ideal situation for everyone is to be one of the two stable competitors. Worse, even if an independent candidate can usurp one party or split the difference between the Republican and Democrat in a state vote, the oddities of the Electoral College make it nearly impossible for anyone to win in the modern era outside of the two-party situation. In short, always root for an insurgent candidate on the opposing side of an election, because the sheer weight of the system atop our voting system makes them just implicit help for your side.

This is precisely why I brought up the Bull Moose in my earlier post.  In 1912, we actually had a popular third party candidate in Teddy Roosevelt.  As a result, the Republican party split their vote between Roosevelt and Taft  (Roosevelt actually did slightly better than Taft), leaving Wilson with a 'majority' vote of 41.8%.  The thing is, if the existing parties don't get their act together, the American public might actually decide to vote both of them out of office.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

adifferenceinsize

Quote from: Oniya on March 07, 2011, 11:46:17 PMThe thing is, if the existing parties don't get their act together, the American public might actually decide to vote both of them out of office.
Maybe, but highly unlikely. First is the momentum problem. We saw this recently with Obama in the primaries... at first, he wasn't doing especially well in primaries in large part because people were afraid by voting for him instead of Hillary Clinton or Edwards, they'd be tossing their vote. However, as Edwards became less relevant a candidate, people became increasingly willing to throw their lot in with him until we got where we are today. This problem is several orders of magnitude worse in the case of a general election where so much rhetorical baggage is bound up in the concepts of the two main parties that people will be far more hesitant to risk their vote being a spoiler for their opposing choice. In this regard, there are solutions, but the cases of Roosevelt or Perot show the peril of running from the sides of the political spectrum; if you are fighting more directly in the spheres of belief of one candidate, then you inherently end up making it easier for the opposing candidate. Therefore, any outsider must essentially find a way to roughly split the difference between his major party foes. Conveniently, the ramshackle belief systems in both parties make it possible to create a logical party framework that can steal some from both sides of the aisle, essentially jamming wedges into both parties' central coalitions.

Assuming our hypothetical Third Manderson can come up with such a base of belief to fight from, there are still several systemic issues. Since there's generally a lot of natural voting weight in favor of incumbents (thanks "The Devil You Know"), the best chance for this run is after a president's second term, so we're looking at 2016 at the earliest, barring an Obama nuclear train-wreck in the next year or so. That's convenient, since you need a lot of time and resources to make the bid anyhow. Given how each state's requirements for running for president differ, but generally are not overly friendly to non-party candidates, you will need to do a lot of work to get on the ballot. Then there's an issue of money and vote-gathering engines, the two main reasons the parties in power are so tough to knock off. The 2008 election showed that there is a lot of potential out there to mobilize new resources to get voters behind you, but exploiting this effectively is no small achievement without stealing a bunch of people from both parties with experience in setting up the fundamentals which still matter. An Obama-style or Paul-style money collection scheme can do a lot from public support, but without personal fortune or lobbyist VC, traditional ad venues will be the playthings of your rivals on both sides.

I'd personally love to see something like this materialize, but I'm hesitant at my most optimistic in expecting it in my lifetime.

Callie Del Noire

I think most of the senior republicans are waiting till 2016 when they hope they are facing someone like Clinton. Who I'm still surprised has stayed on board and not looked for a way to 'bow out' with honor so she can run against the President. She's got to have been given some MAJOR promises for her to behave as well as she has.

adifferenceinsize

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 08, 2011, 12:25:16 AM
I think most of the senior republicans are waiting till 2016 when they hope they are facing someone like Clinton. Who I'm still surprised has stayed on board and not looked for a way to 'bow out' with honor so she can run against the President. She's got to have been given some MAJOR promises for her to behave as well as she has.
Eh... Clinton knows she has a much better chance being a team player and building up some national credibility as a Secretary of State than trying to go after the presidency now. Frankly, if anyone vaguely centrist in their party tries to run a real campaign against Obama next year, it'd have to be because of some massive meltdown, and I still think Clinton has a better chance in a position where she gets to play to her strengths as a fighter rather than clean-up. If anything, I'm curious as to the layout of the White House's flow of communications, because the direction it's been taking in many areas seems an odd hedging between progressive and Clintonian tacks.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: adifferenceinsize on March 08, 2011, 01:01:21 AM
Eh... Clinton knows she has a much better chance being a team player and building up some national credibility as a Secretary of State than trying to go after the presidency now. Frankly, if anyone vaguely centrist in their party tries to run a real campaign against Obama next year, it'd have to be because of some massive meltdown, and I still think Clinton has a better chance in a position where she gets to play to her strengths as a fighter rather than clean-up. If anything, I'm curious as to the layout of the White House's flow of communications, because the direction it's been taking in many areas seems an odd hedging between progressive and Clintonian tacks.

If there was ANYTHING remotely able to add '-gate' to the crisis name, she'd be out the door in a heartbeat in 'protest' over the 'corruption in the white house' in an effort to 'save the office' if there is a REMOTE chance she could do it and look good at the performing it.

As it is, I figure she's got more leverage with the party than the VP at this point. Problem is both of them will be OLD by then.

OldSchoolGamer

There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

Vekseid

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 10, 2011, 04:53:50 AM
Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

Oniya

Quote from: Vekseid on March 10, 2011, 05:43:18 AM
Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

I'm sitting here, literally shaking, because I went off looking for a half-remembered quote.  Out of context, it would have been, at best, a 'bumper sticker' quote.  In context, it was more than I was expecting.  The quote derives from a 1976 movie called 'Network'.  The actual movie scene is incredibly powerful, but still has enough 'movie-ness' to be distracting, so I found this video with just the audio and typography.  You can look up the video clip if you want - I'd actually recommend it - but this sums up what needs to happen, and soon.

Mad As Hell! Kinetic Typography
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 10, 2011, 04:53:50 AM
There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.



American Elder Party: Why Vote For The Lesser Evil?

Quote from: Vekseid on March 10, 2011, 05:43:18 AM
I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

Hear, hear. The good old USA isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 10, 2011, 04:53:50 AM
There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

No, we're not. IF we get our collective heads out of our ass. Third parties aren't the way to fix problems. Taking BACK our parties from corporate interests is. As well as the special interests. It's a litmus test to become president now. You have to pass this special interests test, and this one, and that one, and those two..

Not the way it should be.

The media is too concerned with either pulling down a candidate over any perceived flaw or mistake in the past or rebuilding 'Camelot' in their view. Too many candidates who COULD be a good president for WON'T RUN.

Not because they are bad people,  but because they are HUMAN. They made mistakes, they misspeak, they have FLAWS. Rule of thumb: EVERYONE IS HUMAN, we all have feet of clay.

Consider this.  Nixon was a noxious man who couldn't deal with rivals or the media, BUT he was quite possibly the best foreign policy president of the 2nd half of the last century. He did more build peace with China and the USSR than anyone else could have done (or could have done).

Abraham Lincoln would have been marginalize (tall gawky man) and how many other good men who were president wouldn't have made the 'MEDIA' cut?

The media role is to INFORM. Not DECIDE.

Jude

I often hear people blame interest groups, corporations, corrupt politicians, and the media for the problems that our country is facing.  When people aren't pointing the finger in that direction they have it squarely fixed on the half of the political spectrum that are in disagreement with.  Such a small percentage of people are left over after that, some who don't think our problems are actually that bad and others who blame us for the troubles that are plaguing us.  I think I've come to settle somewhere between there.

We live in a country where ignorance is practically a way of life (not that I'm making the claim that it's better or worse anywhere else).  I'm increasingly beginning to think that we are a nation of morons.

- People are against decreasing our spending in damn near every category and against tax increases (http://people-press.org/report/702/) but apparently really think the government should do something about our debt (http://people-press.org/report/683/).  Basically they want the problem fixed but the only ways in want it fixed are the ones that don't actually require them to contribute to the solution.

- Americans know basic trends that all forms of media constantly spoon-feed to us, but when it comes to knowledge of political fact that contains any nuance whatsoever, we're apparently retarded (http://people-press.org/report/677/).  My favorite item here is how people are obsessed with inflation being a problem, but only 14% of them knew that the inflation rate was 1%.  And that super unpopular TARP program?  Only 16% know that the vast majority of it has been repayed!

- America's belief in the position of the scientific consensus on climate change, especially human caused climate change, has been getting worse, not better (http://people-press.org/report/669/).

- More people currently say they don't know what religion our president is than those who say he's a Christian (despite all of the times he's admitted he was a Christian and the Jeremiah Wright controversy drawing attention to his place of worship).  Also, 18% of us think he's a Muslim (http://people-press.org/report/645/).

- 28% of us know that the Chief Justice is John Roberts and only 34% knew that the Bailout was under Bush (http://people-press.org/report/635/).

Basically, we're a nation composed primarily of morons.  Plus, we're a Democratic Republic.  I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that those two taken in concert are why we're having problems.

Revolverman

Jude, by that logic, 98.8 of Germans in 1936 were full card carrying members of the Nazi party. Most of this "Ignorance" doesn't come from the fact people are stupid, but that the Media nowadays is so bought and payed for by power brokers, and would rather waste everyone time with Celebrities then crap that matters.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Revolverman on March 10, 2011, 07:20:19 PM
Jude, by that logic, 98.8 of Germans in 1936 were full card carrying members of the Nazi party. Most of this "Ignorance" doesn't come from the fact people are stupid, but that the Media nowadays is so bought and payed for by power brokers, and would rather waste everyone time with Celebrities then crap that matters.

A good example of this is a couple years ago, the news (all of the big networks) spent the better part of two days going on Paris Hilton's DUI trial, while down in Venezuela everyone's favorite up and coming dictator was trying to rewrite the constitution to something more his liking and his people were being sicced on the students (and others) who were protesting it.

I had to see it on BBC America.

Jude

Your Nazi argument is extremely poorly formed given that the Nazis did not achieve power by Democratic means.  They came to prominence through anti-Democratic, tyrannical methods such as the Burning of the Reichtag.  Hitler had been trying to seize control since the Beer Hall Putsch at that point.  And even if that wasn't the case, ignorance back then was much more excusable, today we have free, unfiltered sources of information like the internet.

As far as the celebrity bit goes, they air that crap because people like it.  The media is a business and they pander to what gets them attention.  Do you truly believe this stuff about Charlie Sheen is some governmental conspiracy to distract attention away from what the people should be looking at?  That kind of conspiratorial thinking is also part of the problem.  There's news all over the place about Sheen because it sells.

EDIT:  In addition, there are many areas where people are properly educated and it still does no good.  Assessments of the public understanding of science in America always end up extremely depressing because people here are damn near experts at choosing to believe what they want to.  Disagreement with evolution definitely isn't a media issue, the fact that 4 in 10 Americans are strict creationists that believe God created humanity in the last 10,000 years (and fuck the fossil evidence) is a really great example of that fact.

Vekseid

Quote from: Jude on March 10, 2011, 04:49:36 PM
We live in a country where ignorance is practically a way of life (not that I'm making the claim that it's better or worse anywhere else).  I'm increasingly beginning to think that we are a nation of morons.

- People are against decreasing our spending in damn near every category and against tax increases (http://people-press.org/report/702/) but apparently really think the government should do something about our debt (http://people-press.org/report/683/).  Basically they want the problem fixed but the only ways in want it fixed are the ones that don't actually require them to contribute to the solution.

- Americans know basic trends that all forms of media constantly spoon-feed to us, but when it comes to knowledge of political fact that contains any nuance whatsoever, we're apparently retarded (http://people-press.org/report/677/).  My favorite item here is how people are obsessed with inflation being a problem, but only 14% of them knew that the inflation rate was 1%.  And that super unpopular TARP program?  Only 16% know that the vast majority of it has been repayed!

- America's belief in the position of the scientific consensus on climate change, especially human caused climate change, has been getting worse, not better (http://people-press.org/report/669/).

- More people currently say they don't know what religion our president is than those who say he's a Christian (despite all of the times he's admitted he was a Christian and the Jeremiah Wright controversy drawing attention to his place of worship).  Also, 18% of us think he's a Muslim (http://people-press.org/report/645/).

- 28% of us know that the Chief Justice is John Roberts and only 34% knew that the Bailout was under Bush (http://people-press.org/report/635/).

Basically, we're a nation composed primarily of morons.  Plus, we're a Democratic Republic.  I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that those two taken in concert are why we're having problems.

Those are all examples of ignorance. Not one of them is an example of idiocy.

Misinformation has a solution.

Jude

Misinformation is when you're fed information to the contrary.  51% of the country not being able to identify Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House is not a consequence of misinformation.  That's laziness, self-involvement, and not taking civic responsibilities seriously.  Idiocy may not be the proper term for it, but I disagree that you can call our electorate competent or informed.  And making excuses for them is simply making the situation worse.  We need to stop populism and start accepting some of the responsibility for the way our Democratic Republic is being managed.  We put those people in power when we voted, clearly the people do not know best and I find the attitude of "if only the people's will was done everything would be fine" to be supremely naive.

EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, it's a bad habit of mine; I need to proofread my stuff much more before clicking the post button.

As a bit of an afterword (I read what I wrote and am reflecting on it somewhat), I know there are governmental and corporate entities that are making things worse.  The people aren't solely to blame.  I just object to a lot assumptions regularly made about the American People.  We don't necessarily know what's best and in a lot of instances our opinions (as a whole) are not necessarily lock-step with reality.  I fear there's a great deal of anti-intellectualism and baseless mistrust of authorities (in the expert sense, such as scientists or doctors) that compounds our problems.  We, as a nation on average, are often guilty of sloppy thinking (utilization of confirmation bias, ignoring history, et cetera).  I think this is a large part of why we're in trouble.

Vekseid

Quote from: Jude on March 10, 2011, 08:29:25 PM
Misinformation is when you're fed information to the contrary.  51% of the country not being able to identify Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House is not a consequence of misinformation.  That's laziness, self-involvement, and not taking civic responsibilities seriously.  Idiocy may not be the proper term for it, but I disagree that you can call our electorate competent or informed.  And making excuses for them is simply making the situation worse.  We need to stop populism and start accepting some of the responsibility for the way our Democratic Republic is being managed.  We put those people in power when we voted, clearly the people do not know best and I find the attitude of "if only the people's will was done everything would be fine" to be supremely naive.

EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, it's a bad habit of mine; I need to proofread my stuff much more before clicking the post button.

As a bit of an afterword (I read what I wrote and am reflecting on it somewhat), I know there are governmental and corporate entities that are making things worse.  The people aren't solely to blame.  I just object to a lot assumptions regularly made about the American People.  We don't necessarily know what's best and in a lot of instances our opinions (as a whole) are not necessarily lock-step with reality.  I fear there's a great deal of anti-intellectualism and baseless mistrust of authorities (in the expert sense, such as scientists or doctors) that compounds our problems.  We, as a nation on average, are often guilty of sloppy thinking (utilization of confirmation bias, ignoring history, et cetera).  I think this is a large part of why we're in trouble.

Alluding to Barack Obama being muslim, not born in this country, etc. certainly is misinforming. And that's hardly the extent of what Fox has been caught misinforming about.

Traditional news outlets in general also have comparatively underinformed audiences compared to e.g. the Daily Show. The media does have a role in this.

Jude

Quote from: Vekseid on March 10, 2011, 11:25:49 PM
Traditional news outlets in general also have comparatively underinformed audiences compared to e.g. the Daily Show. The media does have a role in this.
That's a correlative statement that you're drawing a causative conclusion from.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Here's some data I found on the subject too:  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

There's a whole lot of traditional media above the Daily Show on the list.  Though I will admit that the averages are messed up due to the inclusion of things like "the National Inquirer."  The number of questions is also depressingly small; there are 3 of them and only 2 actually pertain to local politics.

One potential factor that skews the results is differences in Demographics.  A more educated person will naturally be more informed and affluent, which results in increased scores for several reasons:  an education person has a better baseline of knowledge with which to educate themselves, more money and time with which to do it, and more tools of critical thinking to filter and analyze the news, thus reach a better conclusion.  If you compare the percentage of people who got all 3 right minus the percentage of education, both the Daily Show and Colbert Report (as well as many other non-traditional news sources) have either negative or very small results.  In other words, there's not sufficient evidence to show that they're doing a very good job of informing their audience.

Of course, knowing and admitting the limitations of that study, I'd be happy to analyze any data you bring forward on the subject.  From this alone however, your claim seems dubious.

Revolverman

Quote from: Jude on March 10, 2011, 08:24:59 PM
Your Nazi argument is extremely poorly formed given that the Nazis did not achieve power by Democratic means.  They came to prominence through anti-Democratic, tyrannical methods such as the Burning of the Reichtag. 

That took place AFTER they had been elected.

Jude

Quote from: Revolverman on March 11, 2011, 01:57:35 AM
That took place AFTER they had been elected.
Hitler was never elected.  He was appointed chancellor by the very person who defeated him in the Presidential election years before.  It took a lot of dirty maneuvering through exploitation of business interests and political allegiances for the Nazis to seize power, and it wasn't at all Democratic.  Furthermore, his first attempt at seizing power in the Beer Hall Putsch occurred before he even tried to run for office.

You didn't really respond to my point about the internet and I still don't feel like I have a good grasp on why you thought a Nazi comparison was telling.

Noelle

Information is more available to the average American than it ever has been. It is literally at your fingertips at any given moment with the advent of Smartphones. To blame the media for not spoon-feeding you what you need to know is kind of pathetic at this point -- there is a wealth of knowledge out there and it's nobody's fault but the peoples' fault if they are under-utilizing it.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Vekseid on March 10, 2011, 05:43:18 AM
I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

Depends on how far you stretch the definition of "re-invention."  Because we're not talking about making a techno-trance version of the Star-Spangled Banner or coming out with red, white and blue flavors of Cheez-Wiz or building new asteroid belts of suburbia.  We're talking the sort of "re-invention" the Roman Empire underwent when some "fire sale" real estate deals were made with Visigoths and Vandals and the capital moved to Constantinople. 

Jude

The future isn't set in stone.  The US could very well go down; it all depends on what policies we enact and how we decided to shape our culture.  With our current set of values, we are definitely looking at decline.  A society with rampant anti-intellectualism and love for the past will certainly not be what leads us into the future.

Vekseid

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 11, 2011, 10:02:14 PM
Depends on how far you stretch the definition of "re-invention."  Because we're not talking about making a techno-trance version of the Star-Spangled Banner or coming out with red, white and blue flavors of Cheez-Wiz or building new asteroid belts of suburbia.  We're talking the sort of "re-invention" the Roman Empire underwent when some "fire sale" real estate deals were made with Visigoths and Vandals and the capital moved to Constantinople.

Our country's military is not made up of foreigners who were denied citizenship.

What this country needs is a Second Bill of Rights.

Revolverman

Quote from: Jude on March 11, 2011, 02:06:37 AM
Hitler was never elected.  He was appointed chancellor by the very person who defeated him in the Presidential election years before.  It took a lot of dirty maneuvering through exploitation of business interests and political allegiances for the Nazis to seize power, and it wasn't at all Democratic.  Furthermore, his first attempt at seizing power in the Beer Hall Putsch occurred before he even tried to run for office.

You didn't really respond to my point about the internet and I still don't feel like I have a good grasp on why you thought a Nazi comparison was telling.

First, while you are correct Hitler's first attempt at power was an attempted Putsch, saying he was never elected is a flat falsehood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932) It wasn't until 1933 that Hitler got most of his powers thanks to the panic caused by the Reichstag fire.

I make the comparison because just because we have a free source of information (The internet), the vast majority of Americans, don't use it for finding multiple sources and viewpoints. In Germany, they could get the BBC Radio service, Radio France, and many other forms of media that were not controlled by the Nazis, but they didn't, for many of the same reasons why Americans don't. Too Busy, Don't know it exists, Don't know how to find it, Don't trust it (for Nationalistic, or political reasons), or feel like they already know whats going on.

I use the point because to show that if you control enough media to make it hard, or a hassle to find other viewpoints, you can end up with a very misinformed population.

Are you seriously going to condemn a man for not seeking out other forms of media because hes too worried about keeping food on the table, and warm roof over his head?

Jude

Quote from: Revolverman on March 12, 2011, 01:30:50 AM
First, while you are correct Hitler's first attempt at power was an attempted Putsch, saying he was never elected is a flat falsehood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932) It wasn't until 1933 that Hitler got most of his powers thanks to the panic caused by the Reichstag fire.
Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results
QuoteIn March 1932 Hitler ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1% in the first round and 36.8% in the second against Hindenburg's 49 and 53%.
So no, Hitler was never elected.  I have no idea why you thought the link you provided showed that he was.
Quote from: Revolverman on March 12, 2011, 01:30:50 AMI make the comparison because just because we have a free source of information (The internet), the vast majority of Americans, don't use it for finding multiple sources and viewpoints. In Germany, they could get the BBC Radio service, Radio France, and many other forms of media that were not controlled by the Nazis, but they didn't, for many of the same reasons why Americans don't. Too Busy, Don't know it exists, Don't know how to find it, Don't trust it (for Nationalistic, or political reasons), or feel like they already know whats going on.
People in America consistently choose sources that validate their point of view.  Republicans watch Fox News because it gives them ammo to fuel their world view.  Obviously they're being misinformed, but they're choosing to misinform themselves.  When they hear information that conflicts with their point of view, instead of changing their mind, what do you think they do?  According to many studies, they often reject the source (http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/?p=3da72999788a46bea1d812a8a07e8c8d&pi=0) and instead believe even firmer in that fact which is now disputed by the very same news outlet that presented it in the first place.  How is the media supposed to educate a public that processes information in such a way?

People's media consumption habits can be summed up in a very simple maxim:  avoid cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Revolverman on March 12, 2011, 01:30:50 AMI use the point because to show that if you control enough media to make it hard, or a hassle to find other viewpoints, you can end up with a very misinformed population.
Sure, if "you" control the media "you" can make a lot of people who behave like the average American does accept a lot of things (note that the you would have to be a singular shadowy entity that controls a ridiculous amount of the information in the world, and is thus very improbable).  Those things may not necessarily be things that run contrary to their political principles however; people are much more willing to accept any "fact" that tells them what they want to hear.

This also doesn't necessarily mean that the media is solely to blame even if there is a central entity spinning things (which I don't believe there is -- that's conspiratorial at best, it's not enough to throw the word "corporate" in there as proof).  Through the proper exercise of critical thinking a lot of fiction can be discerned from fact.  People are still responsible for what they choose to believe to some extent.

Furthermore, a lot of what Americans are ignorant of isn't misinformation.  If you don't know who the Secretary of State of is, it's because because you don't consider that information important or educate yourself on it.  Look up statistics on how many people can find Afghanistan on a map if you want to see how truly ignorant our populace is, and you can't blame an alleged corporate media conspiracy for that (actually I'm sure you can find a way to even if I'm right -- and that's my point, in the name of avoiding the discomfort of seeing cracks in their views people are capable of some truly amazing mental gymnastics).
Quote from: Revolverman on March 12, 2011, 01:30:50 AMAre you seriously going to condemn a man for not seeking out other forms of media because hes too worried about keeping food on the table, and warm roof over his head?
No, but I take issue with your characterization of American life as that.  The facts simply don't bear out that characterization:  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

The average male in 2009 had 5.8 leisure hours a day as opposed to the average female 5.1.  That does not sound like someone who is so busy with work and so absorbed in making ends meet that they can't inform themselves.  Obviously there are some people who are that way, maybe even a sizable portion (10% - 20%), but that doesn't account for the number of people who are fundamentally ignorant about the political process.  Remember, that those surveys given by media consumption represent the scores of people who actually bother to tune in to any source of news.  The results are even more dire in those who are totally uninterested in it.

Sure

The Nazis were elected and given a plurality in the Reichstag (though the elections probably wouldn't qualify today as free or fair, nor were they completely rigged), Hitler was appointed as Chancellor (an office under the President who could have dismissed him) as a political maneuver to avoid having to ally with the socialists/communists. He became dictator after the President died by passing the Enabling Act using his thugs to make sure his enemies didn't show up, by cutting a deal with several parties, and then surrounding the Reichstag with his chanting supporters (Brownshirts) threatening violence if it wasn't passed.

So, yes, the Germans did vote for the Nazis and did support them and without said support there would have been no Hitler. He was never elected, however.

QuoteThe average male in 2009 had 5.8 leisure hours a day as opposed to the average female 5.1.

Your link says that men spend 10.3 hours a day working (job+domestic chores) while women spend 10.1 (job+domestic chores) so I'm not sure how that matches up... Perhaps there's a contradiction in the source data?[/offtopic]

More relevant, your link shows: The average American spends 2.82 hours watching TV.

QFR:
QuoteComparing Fox to its 24-hour news channel competitors, for the month of May 2010 the channel drew an average daily prime time audience of 1.8 million versus 747 000 for MSNBC and 595 000 for CNN.

And if we're Rome and we're on our way to falling, we are not past the beginning of the end of the Republic. We'd need a Sulla analogue first. Besides, people understate the chaos that lead to the Republic's fall and the Empire's rise. If anything it was worse than what Germany had during the Great Depression.

On a note more related to this thread:
Some of my more liberal friends have talked rather excitedly about the Republican Party disbanding or fading to irrelevance. Thinking about it, I could see that, though I could also see their recovery. However, my friends' big mistake is to presume that means that a lot of their policies said friends disagree with will go away. Parties are effectively coalitions of smaller interests and relatively few of those interests are directly in the parties. For example, pro-life sentiment won't go away if the Republican party goes away tomorrow and pro-life people will still be elected on account of that.

The Republicans are still relatively disciplined but they've failed to appeal to large segments of their current base's children. They presume, as they age, they will become Republicans just as their parents did. This will only happen if the Republicans can do for them what they did for their parents and, at the moment, they're failing to, preferring to please their current base. This has been true for a while and we're beginning to see the stultification it's caused. The lack of focus, the lack of candidates, and the shrinking percentage of people who are registered Republicans compared to registered Democrats.

At least, that's my opinion.

Vekseid

Quote from: Sure on March 12, 2011, 03:15:57 AM
On a note more related to this thread:
Some of my more liberal friends have talked rather excitedly about the Republican Party disbanding or fading to irrelevance. Thinking about it, I could see that, though I could also see their recovery. However, my friends' big mistake is to presume that means that a lot of their policies said friends disagree with will go away. Parties are effectively coalitions of smaller interests and relatively few of those interests are directly in the parties. For example, pro-life sentiment won't go away if the Republican party goes away tomorrow and pro-life people will still be elected on account of that.

The Republicans are still relatively disciplined but they've failed to appeal to large segments of their current base's children. They presume, as they age, they will become Republicans just as their parents did. This will only happen if the Republicans can do for them what they did for their parents and, at the moment, they're failing to, preferring to please their current base. This has been true for a while and we're beginning to see the stultification it's caused. The lack of focus, the lack of candidates, and the shrinking percentage of people who are registered Republicans compared to registered Democrats.

At least, that's my opinion.

Well there are four 'wings' of the Republican party
- The Religious Right, whose power is continually fading (and whose extremism is driving the rise of atheism in the United States)
- The Racists, who are largely already gone, but still have some noticeable impact. I suspect they'll die with Rush Limbaugh.
- The Libertarians, who are rising in power but are currently marginalized.
- The Corporatists, who also represent a significant chunk of the Democratic party.

Embedded within that, is where the intellectual and social talent in this country is going.

When Rupert Murdoch croaks, will his heirs be anywhere remotely as insightful and cunning as he is? Keep in mind, he's made good bets, but never the best bets - he bet on Yahoo, not Google, MySpace, not Facebook, etc. The man knows where the world is going but even he gets caught off guard.

When Rush Limbaugh croaks, who replaces him? Glenn Beck is already on a downward swing. Even Sean Hannity is, as is Fox, in general. Sarah Palin has polarized the country but she's a narcissist with relatively little personal competence - she's no replacement for Rush. My thread about Al Jazeera isn't some isolated phenomenon - most networks and personalities that provide honest, up-front insight (or at least do a better job of it than Fox and CNN) are on the upswing. Rachel Maddow, the Economist, etc.

As a general rule, throughout history, conservatives win battles and lose wars. I don't expect the future to be any different in that regard.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 10, 2011, 11:58:54 AM
No, we're not. IF we get our collective heads out of our ass. Third parties aren't the way to fix problems. Taking BACK our parties from corporate interests is. As well as the special interests. It's a litmus test to become president now. You have to pass this special interests test, and this one, and that one, and those two..

The two parties ARE corporate interests.

In America we have two basic blocs of voters/parties.  On the Left, we have the Democrats (minus the Blue Dogs) who are convinced the government can solve our problems if only it spends more money.  On the Right, we have the GOP and the conservative Democrats, who don't really care what happens to America as long as the wealthy elite are not inconvenienced in any way and can continue to get richer.

There are other, much smaller blocs, of course: the fundies, the Greens, etc., but those two are 95% or better.

Needless to say, neither of these ideologies are going to fix what's wrong with America.

The reason I don't see America lasting much longer (at least in anything resembling its current form) is that the population doesn't have a clue and doesn't WANT one.  As the Right jostles to insert its collective nose deeper into the corporate rectum and the Left wants more government, the whole ship continues to go down, "and the band plays on."

Deep down inside, I don't think America WANTS to be saved.  My recommendation is to get to the lifeboats (I am).

Callie Del Noire

#51
Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 12, 2011, 01:04:26 PM

The reason I don't see America lasting much longer (at least in anything resembling its current form) is that the population doesn't have a clue and doesn't WANT one.  As the Right jostles to insert its collective nose deeper into the corporate rectum and the Left wants more government, the whole ship continues to go down, "and the band plays on."

Deep down inside, I don't think America WANTS to be saved.  My recommendation is to get to the lifeboats (I am).


That opinion, pardon my french, is utter BS. That is the defeatist 'my vote doesn't count' BS I've heard since I could walk. I grew up with my first memories including President Richard Nixon resigning on TV. Over the years, I watched over 'potential voters' vs 'actual voters' turn into a joke for a democracy. I spent several years in Europe as a child and an adult and I was EMBARRASSED that every damn country in the EU had more participation in their electoral process than we had since the Kennedy elections.

I used to yell at my airmen for not bothering to vote or even register. I had two of them who were from Dade Country Florida during the Bush/Gore referendum. I pointed out that their voted could have very likely counted given the closeness of the time. It was standing policy in my workcenter if you didn't vote, you couldn't bitch about the president. (Either way)

We need to look at that first line on the constitution again. We, THE PEOPLE. It's time we do something. Long past.

One of the things I LIKED about the election was that more people participated, as a percentage, than anytime since Watergate. I don't disagree with everything the President does, but I respect him. Which is more than I can say for some I voted for.

Giving up on the process when it's still possible to fix the process is stupid, lazy and defeatist. There is still some work to be done, like extracting special interests from the democratic process, but it CAN be done.

The problem is everyone in the US wants someone to pull a magic wand out of their jacket and fix things instantly.

We need to accept that it's OUR duty to go out and get informed. To follow our politicians BEFORE and AFTER we vote on them. OUR Duty to be informed. ACCEPT that compromise is part of the process. ACCEPT that we will lose occasionally.

LEARN and be responsible with our vote, it's not just a right.. its' a duty to be an informed voter. If you don't participate you can't shape actions.

Jude

I like everything you said, but I believe there's a bit more to it than that if we want to fix our country.  People who listen to conservative talk radio think that they're fulfilling their civic duty to be informed.  Shaun Hannity's listeners greet him when they call in with "you're a patriot" and often he responds in kind if he knows them at all.  And it's not like liberals are any better; they jump to conclusions and vilify the other side with sincere passion every bit as much as conservatives do while thinking that their hyper-partisanship is a virtue.  Both sides truly believe that they're serving the country with their actions and I think that their heart is in the right place even if their brain is out to lunch.

They have a good reason (I use italics to reference the fact that this is true only from their perspective) to avoid compromise.  If you believe you have the solution to the problem, then deterring even a little bit from that optimal path will actually hurt the country.  That's the problem with ideologues, they're honestly convinced that their political philosophy is a superior outlook on politics to the other side, which justifies all kinds of extremism and absurdities.

This is especially true when our political parties are coalitions of disparate elements that don't necessarily have any thematic consistency.  Republicans claim that they want small government and believe in the rights of the individual while supporting all kinds of legislation that dramatically increases spending like the war on drugs and policies the life of the individual like DOMA.  Democrats make a similar claims about wanting to preserve civil rights, but they only seem interested preserving certain explicit freedoms while they have no problem passing bills that require people to behave in a certain way (such as the health care bill), and of course they have numerous other hypocrisies.  Libertarians, by contrast, have a political system envisioned that is internally consistent because every tenet of their belief is informed by the basic principle of limited government.

The only way you can really accurately characterize Republicans and Democrats is liberal and conservative, in that Republicans trend towards preserving traditional governmental policies and liberals are generally in favor of progressing our laws and institutions in a new direction.  Both are necessarily components of any stable society.  How it's supposed to work is that unless most issues that the liberals bring up conservatives block, with the exception of the ideas which truly are valuable and good and those ideas eventually survive the cut and become the new preserved tradition.  Conservatives are supposed to keep liberals from throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but everything is out of whack now.  Now conservatives are trying to roll back the clock, they've become de-progressives basically.

Why did this happen?  Because around the time Reagan came into office the policies which made it past the conservative/liberal tug of war were seemingly failing.  It looked, at the time, like our process of conservation and progression was out of whack and we'd become too centered on progressing recklessly.  To the American public Reagan "fixed' the problem by winding back the clock, which fundamentally change the dynamics in this country.  Now nothing is functioning as it should and we're stuck in a state of political limbo where it's constantly three steps forward and 2.888(repeating) back.

The latest recession was a really great chance to prove to the American people that things, as they've been post-Reagan, are not working.  An impartial observer would've seen that the ways in which we've gone backwards are what caused our problems.  Conservatives like to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but even the bill which was largely Republican sponsored which recently passed through congress that is aimed at slowly phasing out those institutions admits that what went wrong with them was actually that the reckless, unmitigated, and de-regulated behavior of the private sector spilled into these government endorsed enterprises.  They're all a symptom of the same problem.

A little bit of degression every now and then is healthy, because some progressive initiatives that are actually bad will get past the process by accident from time to time.  Our political system is not perfect and has never been, but for the longest time it worked pretty well.  Until recently America has been on what is practically a constant course upward to global prominence.  Even the Civil War which served as a dark point on the timeline of our nation's history was fought in the name of bettering our nation, and as a result things did in fact get better.

The problem is, the only way in which we're going to get anywhere is a majority (or at least a plurality) of the American people come to realize that liberal and conservative perspectives are not conflicting truths.  They are not philosophies wherein one must be right and one must be wrong.  They are toolsets to deal problems that must be applied evenly by reasonable people if we're going to have a successful government.  We can't have one party that holds at its core a self-perpetuating belief of governmental failure and an obsession with returning to the 1950s while the other half of our political system acts with typical incompetence to prove their point.

The only thing that's going to solve this problem is a more enlightened public with less confidence and adherence to their own opinions.  We need to be more critical of claims made by both sides of the aisle.  Everyone needs to learn to do research and think things through with as little bias as possible before coming to a conclusion.  Each and every member of the voting public needs to do more than read the Constitution (it being a part of your study is good though), because that's just a statement of how things are.

Look at statistics and studies on political topics.  Stop latching onto ideas because they happen to fall in line with the philosophy you're currently behind and instead question each idea on its own merits.  Question yourself constantly, try and think of how other people will attack whatever it is you're professing before they get a chance to, and wonder if in fact they are right.  Follow the evidence and see where it leads, don't look for evidence that fits the conclusion you're hoping to draw.  Simply look at the data in general and make sure it's from a reputable source.

It isn't that we don't think for ourselves, it's that we don't think about things that could potentially disprove the truths that we hold dear.  We need to stop identifying first and foremost as Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, or Liberals, and start thinking of ourselves as a voting member of the public who has a responsibility to use their higher faculties to analyze the situation that our country is in before walking to the polls to cast a party-line vote.

Even more importantly, we need to consume media with a critical eye so that it won't matter whether we're being lied to or not:  if we stop watching the TV channels that try and spoon-feed us what we want to believe, they'll go out of business and be replaced by the news sources that we begin to patronize for their fair reporting.  Being unbiased isn't refusing to take a perspective either, it's simply taking a perspective that's based on the evidence.

Fuck fair and balanced; the truth isn't balanced.  That the war on drugs is a colossal failure isn't up for debate anymore than the fact that Barack Obama is a Christian citizen who was born in Hawaii.  Facts aren't partisan.  So if we want to live in a flourishing society, we need to start adopting opinions which are based on facts, not partisanship or protecting any other preconceived notion.

Callie Del Noire

You know what Jude, I think you are half right. But the thing is if we don't educate ourselves and set about changing the system, AND acknowledging the right to the opposition to have their opinion. We've never been a polite society when politics are involved, and anyone that thinks that is wrong. (Goldwater's campaign is a good example of how well the opposition can throw mud).

The thing is.. if each person doesn't try to come up with something to look for on their own, nothing ever happens.

Witness the election of President Obama. Prior to the actual election (say.. about like where we are in the timeline to the 2012 election), he was a nobody. A first time US Senator against a powerful more publically known opponent (Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain).

People listened and watched the news, not too much admittedly but more than any election since Watergate. Small steps, even if the results don't please you, can START something. The lack of action for the 2012 election now tells me that inertia is setting back in and I will be very curious to see how many first time voters return to the polls this time.

I can almost see at least a close margin if someone halfway rational gets the Republican nod. Sadly the current crop doesn't have many choices. Senator McCain strikes me as more rational than the list at the top but I doubt he'll try again. And let's be honest, we need the younger more vital segment of the part to step up and take charge.

That is something we need on BOTH sides.

More importantly we need people to start looking and thinking about things. Education is part of that. Reform is another part. Me, personally, I'd do away with the term limits to office WITH a single provision. You can only hold office for two terms then have to sit out a term. I think that breaking the 'in office' advantage would do a lot to making things more vital and dynamic in government.

There is no single step or process to fix the problems we've got in the system but getting VOTERS to step up and vote and participate is the start.

Jude

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I question why people were so involved in 2008.  I think it was because of how much people disliked Bush and the fact that Obama is black more than anything.  It was an exciting and dynamic event because in a lot of ways it became a big first for our country as well as a repudiation of an extremely unpopular president.

I'm not sure how to reproduce that electricity for 2012.  I just don't think it'll happen.

I can honestly say I felt really awesome when Obama got elected in 2008; it really did seem like an inflection point of change in our country in a lot of ways.  Then... nothing really changed.

Oniya

I'm encouraged by something I saw today.  The little Oni was invited to a friend's birthday party, and as I floated around the other adults (only one of which I knew to any real extent), I heard people talking about these things.  Now, mind you, I live in an insular little podunk town with cow pastures within five miles of the center of town in any direction.  If there's any place that's resistant to change, it's a town like this, where buildings that have been razed to the ground for five years are still landmarks.

People are talking.  I think (from a snippet of something that I wandered past) that people are ready to start acting.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

I hope you're right.  I don't care if we live in a more conservative or liberal society when it comes to pure fiscal issues at this point.  I just want to see us progress, remain prosperous, and include some of the more marginalized members of society into the fold of mainstream life (through things such as gay marriage being respected).

If nothing else it's encouraging to read posts on this forum even when we're in the middle of heated debates, because I think damn near everyone here agrees with some version of what I said in the above paragraph.

OldSchoolGamer

The problem with this notion that everything politically in the United States is going to work out is that we're facing problems that action needed to start happening 25 years ago to solve.  At this juncture, it's like having the bridge crew of the Titanic finally decide an iceberg watch would be prudent after all...an hour after the collision.  It's too late.

We needed to do something about the deficit and government spending back in the 1980s.  We needed to begin full-scale R&D into alternative energy sources, with none of this childish belief in Santa Claus and the "free market" magically pulling something out of its ass just in the nick of time.  We needed to do something about the loss of our industrial base back in the 1990s.  We needed to have not invaded Iraq ten years ago.

But even now, nothing is really being done about any of this.  The Republicans want to cut what little R&D remains and, I guess, just have us sit with our collective thumbs in our asses until the last supertanker of Saudi crude pulls into New Orleans.  We've built a fortified embassy compound the size of The Vatican in Baghdad, so that resource sink isn't going away anytime soon.  Gitmo is still open for business.  The Democrats insist Social Security not be touched.  The Republicans whined like emo kids at the rich having to take a 1/2-inch haircut that would still have left them with a marginal tax rate half that of the mid 20th century, along with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.  We had the spectacle of Boehner threatening to hold his breath until he died if he couldn't get his way, like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum in the supermarket checkout line.  All that, over a small piece of the deficit.  What are they going to do when the numbers are crunched and it turned out tax rates on the jet set have to go up 5%?  Commit group seppuku on the steps of the Capitol?

We're a day late and a dollar short, getting later and getting shorter, and no one cares.

Callie Del Noire

People care. Just not enough to make it news worthy if you're cynical.

On the R&D point, we should have never killed the corporate tax credit for R&D, we'd still have some of the best R&D divisions around if we did. (thank you democrats). Agreed that we need to stop coddling the rich and they need to accept that some of their tax cuts need to go away. (suck it up republicans). There is bloat in the budget that needs to be cut. (both parties, I'm looking at you).

But in the end, its not the republicans or democrats at fault. It's ALL of us for not facing up to the hard bad news. Not everything we want is going to happen. Not everything we passed should stay law. It's not the unions or rich folks faults. It's EVERYONE.

We've gotten fat and lazy from our success and growth. We are arguably the most comfortable country to live in. That means we're used to a standard of comfort that isn't easily found elsewhere. The US as a country hasn't knuckled down and pulled their belt tight since the second world war. We need to accept there is no magic fix.

And agreed, we went into Iraq too early, without consideration of impact on the country and the region.  We failed to secure the borders against the initial surge of insurgents that cost THOUSANDS of civilian lives and we turned what should have been a reconstruction into a no-bid feeding frenzy. The leeching of manpower kept us from being effective in Afghanistan, which to me is a more dangerous region. A point a LOT of people don't consider about the Taliban. They were growing in Pakistan, which I might want to point out is a NUCLEAR power. Afghanistan and Pakistan are tied together in weird ways. If we had focused on Afghanistan we could have possibly found Bin Laden (willing to bet he's not in the region anymore, with our luck he's on a beach in Bali or such.)

Democrats need to realize that not every special interest has ideas/needs that need to be coddled and put forth as the primary elements of a party platform. For years, the divisiveness of the national committee selection process has made it hard to come up with their best.

Republicans, we need to stop letting the corporate sellouts and religious extreme rule the agenda and platform determination. We go on about 'small government' which is not what we want anymore. We want 'right sized'. We need to accept that means we have to pay taxes, and that cutting corners and giving the rich ways out won't always be doable. They have to pay. You can't keep milking out the middle class and eliminate  programs that are encourage social and personal responsibility because the bible thumpers among us are upset by them.

BOTH parties need to get together and stop acting like protecting American Business interests is a BAD Thing. The EU, Japan, China and India ALL engage in some form of protectionism. We need to stop foreign interests demanding by back door deals, payola and such with OUR elected officials setting our commercial policies. NAFTA needs reform and not just for what it did to the US, but for Canada and Mexico. Its not healthy in it's current form. Anyone that thinks it is only looking at their bottom line today and not what the wider picture. We need to reform our Corporate Tax policies to bring them back, and given that the EU and other countries are LOWER on than our national level, that should tell us something. That being said, yes.. Corporate tax needs reform but their influence on the political process needs to be reformed to. Special interests need to have better supervision.

Everyone needs to understand that a change enacted today will most likely not show results till sometime in the NEXT president's tenure in office (assuming that President Obama is reelected)

Vekseid

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on March 13, 2011, 03:22:20 AM
The problem with this notion that everything politically in the United States is going to work out is that we're facing problems that action needed to start happening 25 years ago to solve.  At this juncture, it's like having the bridge crew of the Titanic finally decide an iceberg watch would be prudent after all...an hour after the collision.  It's too late.

Just because it's too late to prevent damage does not mean it's too late period.

Quote
We needed to do something about the deficit and government spending back in the 1980s.

No we didn't. America's debt is only a problem insofar as people with no economic understanding think of it as a trap rather than an expansion of available liquidity, because, these days, bankruptcy is so much harder to file, usury is legal, predatory lending and fraudulent foreclosures aren't being prosecuted.

Our -economic- problems are related to personal debt loads. They have nothing to do with the government's debt load.

Quote
We needed to begin full-scale R&D into alternative energy sources, with none of this childish belief in Santa Claus and the "free market" magically pulling something out of its ass just in the nick of time.  We needed to do something about the loss of our industrial base back in the 1990s.  We needed to have not invaded Iraq ten years ago.

All of those things would, of course, have been great. None of them are required for our future survival.

Quote
But even now, nothing is really being done about any of this.  The Republicans want to cut what little R&D remains and, I guess, just have us sit with our collective thumbs in our asses until the last supertanker of Saudi crude pulls into New Orleans.  We've built a fortified embassy compound the size of The Vatican in Baghdad, so that resource sink isn't going away anytime soon.  Gitmo is still open for business.  The Democrats insist Social Security not be touched.  The Republicans whined like emo kids at the rich having to take a 1/2-inch haircut that would still have left them with a marginal tax rate half that of the mid 20th century, along with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.  We had the spectacle of Boehner threatening to hold his breath until he died if he couldn't get his way, like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum in the supermarket checkout line.  All that, over a small piece of the deficit.  What are they going to do when the numbers are crunched and it turned out tax rates on the jet set have to go up 5%?  Commit group seppuku on the steps of the Capitol?

The worst thing that can happen with the dollar is it gets replaced. And then what? All the rich fucks who have scammed the nation out of trillions are stuck holding a bunch of paper that they can't even wipe their asses with, while the rest of the country moves on. As it should be.

Quote
We're a day late and a dollar short, getting later and getting shorter, and no one cares.

You might get more people listening to you if you didn't run around screaming that the sky is falling when it isn't, especially regarding confidence based phenomenon such as fiat currency debts. People hold that debt, and that wealth can either be taxed, or lose its value if their current obstinance forces a crisis of confidence. It does not magically vanish.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Vekseid on March 13, 2011, 12:51:20 PM

No we didn't. America's debt is only a problem insofar as people with no economic understanding think of it as a trap rather than an expansion of available liquidity, because, these days, bankruptcy is so much harder to file, usury is legal, predatory lending and fraudulent foreclosures aren't being prosecuted.

Our -economic- problems are related to personal debt loads. They have nothing to do with the government's debt load.

Thank you Veks, I know I missed something in my prior post. A good strong look on how 'greedy' the lending industry has gotten. As a vet I've seen predatory lenders completely DESTROY a serviceman's life and wellbeing.

Jude

No one's ever been able to explain to me why the debt situation is such a big problem when America's credit rating is still triple A or whatever.  When the economy starts growing again it'll be easy to balance the budget.  If we attack the problems we're experiencing head on such as healthcare costs, we'll have no problems whatsoever balancing things and becoming even more prosperous if the innovation is there.  Caution in spending is good, if we keep running up the debt ridiculously there will be a problem, but right now we're at a safe point.  We need more inflation, not less, if we're going to encourage investment.

As far as a few other things I'd add:

- There are still large stretches of land in the Midwest and most other states that are completely uninhabited.  We need more cities and more population growth, and that's simply not going to come from our current citizens.  Lets pave the way forward for relaxing immigration restrictions and repeat the stimulus that was the baby boom.  More citizens means more jobs, more tax, and higher numbers to counter the population of China.  And we have the room for it easily.  We need two sets of rules for citizens and immigrants who move here so that they can't take advantage of our systems in a way that drains them; let them come here with a bit more risk and less of a social net and labor protections with the advantage of being welcomed instead of having to sneak in and suffer what is ultimately the same fate.  They can help us if we let them.

- Another works progress administration would really help us big time.  You could tie this into the above as well.  Get out there and start cultivating new cities and expansions of the utilization of our own territory.

- As others have said, we need to invest in advanced technology, especially for energy independence.  We've been doing this, but the difference is that it has really only happened without coordination on nationwide ambition.  We, as a people, need to get fired up about energy independence like we were about the space race.

TheGlyphstone

We'll need to get over our nuclearphobia first before we can really achieve significant energy independence. Tidal generators and wind farms just don't have enough output to sustain us, and we don't really have the right landscapes for any good thermal/geothermal plants. In a way, this can also be traced back to sensationalist media, who played up Three Mile Island as another Chernobyl disaster - not that nuclear energy is without its drawbacks, but it's nowhere near as horrific as the public consciousness has been trained to believe.

Callie Del Noire

Of course, given the politics of 'where' such things as windfarms are 'sightly' comes into play too. I recall, while living in Maine, a LOT of other wise liberal types were against the building of an off shore windfarm because it was 'unsightly' from where their family vacation spots were.

A lot of improvements have come up over the years. Look at the improvement in solar cells and lithium cells over the years. R&D can still improve things.

We need to invest in proper development in a LOT of energy technologies. Here's an interesting little nugget. Does anyone know when the last NEW oil refinery in the US was built? The last one was built in Garyville, Louisiana in 1976! Can you imagine how many innovations in safety, efficiency and economy. There are a lot of innovations that might not be incorporated structures. Not to mention the facilities themselves are getting older.

The Atomic power industry is another victim of this. People want clean power, but various groups are against it for any of a variety of reasons.

Again it comes back to reinvestment in tech, and encouraging 'R&D'.

Oniya

I'm weird.  I actually like the aesthetics of the various wind turbines.  I've got a slight preference to the vertical ones, but the big propellers are kind of cool too.

Unfortunately, I doubt my neighbors feel the same way.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

Solar energy and fusion are the future (this is pretty much guaranteed by the laws of physics), but nuclear power is a great stopgap measure.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Jude on March 13, 2011, 07:43:45 PM
Solar energy and fusion are the future (this is pretty much guaranteed by the laws of physics), but nuclear power is a great stopgap measure.

Both those technologies require more investment and development though. Which requires short term incentives for the short sighted outlook of American business. If it's not effecting their bottom line THIS quarter, or at the very most two quarters hence, they don't want to look into it.

Jude

I agree with you completely Callie.  Reminds me of a Wired article I read during a gas price hike 2 years ago that basically said the only way we're getting off fossil fuels in any short period of time is if we let gas prices skyrocket.

Vekseid

Quote from: Jude on March 13, 2011, 02:25:10 PM
No one's ever been able to explain to me why the debt situation is such a big problem when America's credit rating is still triple A or whatever.  When the economy starts growing again it'll be easy to balance the budget.  If we attack the problems we're experiencing head on such as healthcare costs, we'll have no problems whatsoever balancing things and becoming even more prosperous if the innovation is there.  Caution in spending is good, if we keep running up the debt ridiculously there will be a problem, but right now we're at a safe point.  We need more inflation, not less, if we're going to encourage investment.

The national debt is a problem in the sense that it limits how much further we can go if we are required to. And the rating really doesn't matter - people are still perfectly happy to lend to Japan, for example.

Quote
As far as a few other things I'd add:

- There are still large stretches of land in the Midwest and most other states that are completely uninhabited.  We need more cities and more population growth, and that's simply not going to come from our current citizens.  Lets pave the way forward for relaxing immigration restrictions and repeat the stimulus that was the baby boom.  More citizens means more jobs, more tax, and higher numbers to counter the population of China.  And we have the room for it easily.  We need two sets of rules for citizens and immigrants who move here so that they can't take advantage of our systems in a way that drains them; let them come here with a bit more risk and less of a social net and labor protections with the advantage of being welcomed instead of having to sneak in and suffer what is ultimately the same fate.  They can help us if we let them.

Part of our population stagnation is directly because of the recession. The same thing occurred during the Great Depression - people feel they can't afford to have children. Aside from that though, a stable population growth is what our immigration policies actually work to manage fairly well.

We don't need more cities as such, though. We have this horrific tendency to pave over valuable farmland and stick cities on top of it, where we should be cultivating the farmland and using less arable land for our living spaces.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Jude on March 13, 2011, 09:05:11 PM
I agree with you completely Callie.  Reminds me of a Wired article I read during a gas price hike 2 years ago that basically said the only way we're getting off fossil fuels in any short period of time is if we let gas prices skyrocket.

We won't. The business model is flawed. The problem with that gas hike was a good portion of the US product wasn't going to the US but Europe. You think our gas is high, you haven't had to buy it in Europe. I had guys I worked with in Rota who would bring their extended family's cars on base to refuel. I think it was like 2.00-something a gallon at the time whereas in town it was 2-something euro a LITER.

The only way we're going to break the gas thing is if something comes right out of left field and smacks us on our collective forehead to knock us completely out.

It might be a reworking of the bacteria that can produce petroleum, or a new battery design or engine design but it will have to be something radical. It could be something political that wipes away OPEC and leaves something completely hostile and antagonistic in it's place.

Something will have to radically change to make American business to look into other alternatives seriously.

Bayushi

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on March 14, 2011, 10:23:01 AMWe won't. The business model is flawed. The problem with that gas hike was a good portion of the US product wasn't going to the US but Europe. You think our gas is high, you haven't had to buy it in Europe. I had guys I worked with in Rota who would bring their extended family's cars on base to refuel. I think it was like 2.00-something a gallon at the time whereas in town it was 2-something euro a LITER.

Much of this is due to the Dollar having been the world's reserve currency since World War 2. When prices for oil are set in dollars, the exchange rate favors the dollar most of the time.

That may be changing, with China and a few other nations pushing for a new world reserve currency.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Akiko on March 16, 2011, 05:52:01 PM
Much of this is due to the Dollar having been the world's reserve currency since World War 2. When prices for oil are set in dollars, the exchange rate favors the dollar most of the time.

That may be changing, with China and a few other nations pushing for a new world reserve currency.

I don't know.. at the time the Euro was at an exchange rate of like.. $2.50 to 1 Euro.


Asuras

Quote from: Akiko
Much of this is due to the Dollar having been the world's reserve currency since World War 2. When prices for oil are set in dollars, the exchange rate favors the dollar most of the time.

That may be changing, with China and a few other nations pushing for a new world reserve currency.

Assumption: The US dollar is a reserve currency desired by foreign countries.

1. Foreign countries demand dollars.
2. The value of the dollar rises due to increased demand.
3. US exports cost more because the dollar that they expect to be paid with costs more too.
4. US exports are uncompetitive because the US dollar is worth more since it's a reserve currency.
5. US companies fire/layoff workers.
6. US unemployment.

Vekseid

Quote from: Akiko on March 16, 2011, 05:52:01 PM
Much of this is due to the Dollar having been the world's reserve currency since World War 2. When prices for oil are set in dollars, the exchange rate favors the dollar most of the time.

That may be changing, with China and a few other nations pushing for a new world reserve currency.

The entire reason gas is so expensive in Europe is because it's so heavily taxed. In the $6/gallon range in some countries.

And as Asuras noted, it's not necessarily a benefit.

gaggedLouise

#74
Quote from: Asuras on March 18, 2011, 01:27:29 AM
Assumption: The US dollar is a reserve currency desired by foreign countries.

1. Foreign countries demand dollars.
2. The value of the dollar rises due to increased demand.
3. US exports cost more because the dollar that they expect to be paid with costs more too.
4. US exports are uncompetitive because the US dollar is worth more since it's a reserve currency.
5. US companies fire/layoff workers.
6. US unemployment.

Conclusion: having a highly valued currency isn't necessarily a power suit for a nation, or a group of nations (such as the euro zone). Currencies are not like heavyweight lifters trying to push the exchange rate ever higher for their countries.

I would agree with the implication that in a time of economic crisis, it's either the currency or the rate of employment that takes a beating if there isn't deliberate action to keep up employment or to maneuver with the interest rates. The difference between now and let's say the thirties or the sixties is that these days, the actual demand for manpower is quite outstripped by the gains of productivity over time through machines. Even when the economy gears up again, there is no general need for a large inflow of manpower with limited training or studies but a lot of will to join in. So the big companies don't really need fifty million ordinary Joes at work, but they do need a consumer base somewhere.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"