It Won't be Pleasant Open Thread

Iowa newspaper gets OK to publish the President's "off-the-record" comments regarding policy goals for the first year of his second term: closing the deal on the Grand Bargain he's pursued since closing the deal on Obamacare, and immigration reform.

"It will probably be messy. It won't be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs," Obama said.

That's a reach for the "center" that ought to depress a few left of center types.

 

"

The second thing I'm confident we'll get done next year is immigration reform," Obama said. "And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community. And this is a relatively new phenomenon. George Bush and Karl Rove were smart enough to understand the changing nature of America. And so I am fairly confident that they're going to have a deep interest in getting that done. And I want to get it done because it's the right thing to do and I've cared about this ever since I ran back in 2008."

And that's another reach for the "center" (Americans generally support easing immigration law) that ought to motivate a few south of the border types.

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My Eyes, My Eyes! (Pittsburg Steeler Uniforms...)

(#294384)

...evn if you are not a football fan...you need to at least momentarily tune in the Pittsburg/Washington game to see the 1907 style Uniforms the Steelers are wearing.

 

I am too stunned to know what to say....they look like bees?

 

Weird.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

Yikes

(#294381)
HankP's picture

Let's hope Marco Rubio's daughter is OK. "Head injury" doesn't sound good, neither does "fair condition".

I blame it all on the Internet

I Miss Pete Carroll...Classy Guy...Treat Him Well In Seattle..nt

(#294378)

Traveller

This Diary Has Certainly Lived Up To Its Title, Hasn't It? -nt-

(#294328)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Diary Title? I Think it Best To Air these Things Out....

(#294345)

...I've learned a lot, actually.

 

There's been some nastiness, but the stakes are big, desperate people struggling desperately in darkening shadows.

 

I ascribe bad faith and willful blindness to my opponents and they the same to me...

 

I probe and search out weaknesses in their lines, and they to mine.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

Everything's Coming Up Ducky

(#294326)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Oregon beats 47 point spread against Colorado by halftime, coasts to 70-14 win. Meanwhile, the #2 ranked Florida Gators fall to the #10 ranked Georgia Bulldogs 17-9. The only minor cloud on Oregon's sunny day is that USC lost to Arizona, which will hurt Oregon's strength of schedule rating. Still, they'll be #3 (at least) in the BCS ratings going into next week's game with USC and looking scary.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Since I'm now an OSU Dad

(#294333)
HankP's picture

I'm hoping the Beavers destroy the Huskies tonight.

I blame it all on the Internet

Both Oregon Teams Are Better Off. . .

(#294335)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .if their rival makes it to the Civil War undefeated--better for strength of schedule, better for national interest. Of course, the party ends for one of them at that point, but it will have been quite a ride, particularly for the Beavers.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

If the Beavers win tonight

(#294337)
HankP's picture

it will be the first time they've ever been at 7 - 0. My daughter tells me during a game you can hear it in the background everywhere - even walking around outside.

I blame it all on the Internet

Or not nt

(#294380)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

It's A Trap!

(#294235)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Ha, Truthers using Ray "Banana Man" Comfort Techniques

(#294241)
brutusettu's picture

Plus those people would probably hate Romney as much or more on those.

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

Republicans make fun of average people

(#294237)
HankP's picture

Democrats just quote Republican elected officials.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Right

(#294238)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Because none of the endless posts whining about the Tea Party or Republicans in general posted here over the many months involved making fun of "average people."

I'll just call your comment "demonstrably inaccurate" and move on.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Todd Aiken, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell,

(#294239)
HankP's picture

Ted Cruz, Allen West, Paul Broun, Herman Cain, Phil Gingrey, Newt Gingrich, Jack Kingston, Joe Walsh, Dan Burton, Mike Pence, Steve King, Sam Brownback, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, David Vitter, Pete Hoekstra, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Denny Rehberg, Sharron Angle, Sue Lowden, Kelly Ayotte, Carl Paladino, Virginia Foxx, John Kasich, Tom Coburn, Rick Santorum, Pat Toomey, Jim DeMint, Nikki Haley, Joe Wilson, Joe Barton, Louie Gohmert, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Sessions, Jason Chaffetz, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker.

 

All differently abled representatives of an insane movement. Too bad they'll have to deal with a black President for another four years.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Nonresponsive

(#294240)
M Scott Eiland's picture

And a reminder that all the left has left is "all his opponents are RACIST!" as a reason for why his campaign is going downhill. Election Night should be entertaining for that reason alone.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I'm ready to place a bet

(#294242)
HankP's picture

I'll bet that the party of multiple-definitions-of-rape loses the presidency and the senate.

 

If it's such a sure thing, take my money.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Mitt Romney is a soulless automaton who hates gay people

(#294222)
HankP's picture

Romney rejected new birth certificates for gay parents

 

“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’

 

Be proud, Republicans. This is what you're voting for.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Bravo! Can We Have "Norwegian Dolchstosslegende" Next?

(#294226)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

This reference is either way over or way under my head. -nt-

(#294231)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

More Nazi references

(#294228)
HankP's picture

puzzling.

I blame it all on the Internet

You Know Better

(#294229)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But as long as your frivolous PRV objection is going to be overruled, it might as well be overruled for multiple instances.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Not sure what your point is

(#294232)
HankP's picture

also not sure why the repeated references to anti-semitic and racist language. I'm sure I'll figure it out at some point.

I blame it all on the Internet

Gee, This Isn't Creepy Or Anything

(#294197)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Not at all. But not to worry, Obama supporters--Amanda Marcotte with all of her awesome political instincts has thrown her full support behind this ad. Clearly, that settles the issue as to whether it will horribly offend non-Obama cultists* or not.

*--no one here is an Obama cultist, of course.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

It only hurts for a minute

(#294248)
brutusettu's picture

On Thursday night, at a working class bar in Bayonne, N.J., Reagan said, “I know what it’s like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute and then it feels just great.”

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

Here's the actual ad. It's terrible.

(#294246)

 

I would've never approved an ad like this. Remarkably tone deaf.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Eh

(#294271)
HankP's picture

it's not targeted within a few hundred light years of anyone here. I have no idea if it would be effective with the people it's targeted at.

I blame it all on the Internet

It's silly, will convince exactly no one of anything, but

(#294261)

apparently lots of folks like it. This just leaves me confused. Is there something in this that's more appealing to people under thirty-five?

Doesn't appeal to me

(#294398)
stinerman's picture

And what is the deal with broads and tattoos.  It isn't hot.  It just makes me think you're either slutty or a hipster.  In this case, the latter.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

"either slutty or a hipster"

(#294419)

Isn't at least one of those what makes it hot?

NSFW NSFW NSFW

(#294421)

Really. Not safe for work,

 

but tats, and I agree with the general proposition that they are more of a turn off than a turn on, can work:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luiscobelo/2277510613/

If Air Time is Restricted to MTV and Youtube, Most People

(#294247)

...won't have a clue that this is even out there...the Ad and its possible effects is a meal for us Political types, and few others...

 

Except maybe the Hipster population!

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Re breaking the voting cherry

(#294244)
Bird Dog's picture

She should have cautioned against getting PTDs (of course, I'm talking about politically transmitted diseases).

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I Think the Lena Dunham Youtube is a Misstep...

(#294245)

...I actually watched Girls fairly faithfully, but principally because it came on after VP with Julia Louis-Dreyfus, a political show I found to be extremely funny and I was glad when Julia won an Emmy for this work.

 

Girls on the other hand would make me cringe from moment to moment...but then I am an old guy, with old guy sensibilities.

 

Still, Dunham seemed real and authentic.

 

So, yes, the Ad makes me cringe also...but what do I know? Will it attract more young women or drive more middle aged men away screaming....that is the calculus.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Not as creepy as the Republican Rape Brigade

(#294201)
HankP's picture

how many varieties of rape have they enumerated again?

 

But Republicans seem to have a big problem with women deciding anything for themselves.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

She's pretty funny.

(#294204)

Her show "Girls" is pretty funny, and fresh. A little uneven, some episodes weren't as strong as others. But she has the charming/obnoxious thing down in a way that reminds me of Woody Allen. I bet she has a long career. I find her kind of cute, too.

 

The video in question is amusing, nothing earth shattering, except to wingnuts I guess. Women having sex is apparently beyond the pale for them and other people who get creeped out by icky girl parts.

 

Oh and romney now has embraced the support of meatloaf, so there's that.

Drinking and carousing during

(#294182)

the official mourning period.   Not a good idea.

How to stop a recession in its tracks

(#294170)
Bird Dog's picture

Host an Olympics.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

No real surprise

(#294173)
TXG1112's picture

The Olympics are just another form of stimulus.

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

+5

(#294194)
brutusettu's picture

n/t

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

A partiicularly wasteful form

(#294180)
HankP's picture

bridges, roads and other infrastructure would be the intelligent thing to do.

I blame it all on the Internet

yeah, probably not a good multiplier

(#294184)
TXG1112's picture

I'm sure lots of infrastructure was built for the Olympics, jut not as much useful stuff as a straight infrastructure/stimulus program. I suppose its less wasteful than a world war....

--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

Texas AG threatened to jail

(#294144)

Texas AG threatened to jail international poll watchers.

 

 

Sounds like chest thumping over State Dept's agreement with outside poll watchers to monitor our elections.  Abbott comes off like a nutcase by spouting off all the nonsensical talkingpoints of the wingers including favorites like

 

Abbott also attacked Project Vote, one of the organizations asking for the focus, writing that it was “closely affiliated with ACORN, which collapsed in disgrace after its role in a widespread voter-registration fraud scheme was uncovered.”

And 

 

While Abbott claimed the Supreme Court “has already determined that Voter ID laws are constitutional,” Texas’ voter ID law was blocked by a panel of federal judges in August and will not be in effect on Election Day. The judges found that the law would “almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”

He of course takes the opportunity to jab Hillary

 

Abbott sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday afternoon asking for assurance that OSCE poll watchers would obey Texas’ election laws in addition to federal statutes. He wrote that it seemed the OSCE was “under the misimpression that the State Department can somehow help its representatives circumvent the Texas Election Code.”

 

Let me ask a few questions here -

 

What would the coverage look like if State belittled this Texas crybaby with the language he used above?  Here's a hint, it wouldn't be just on the lefty news sources.

 

What does he think he is accomplishing here?  Why pick a fight with a powerless international watchdog agency?  I know - It is purely a political ploy carried out by the numbskull Texas has seen fit to elect as AG.  In fact, he put it on the front page of AG website.

 

Finally, when will Texas get its stuff together and act like a grown up state?  They continue to elect complete idiots.

 

 

 

 

I agree with this liberal...

(#294143)
Bird Dog's picture

...on Mourdock. It didn't rise to the level of Akin. Nowhere near.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

It didn't need to

(#294155)
HankP's picture

it just reinforces how extreme Republicans are about forcing rape victims to bear their rapists children.

I blame it all on the Internet

Eh

(#294167)
Bird Dog's picture

This has been discussed re the politicians with extreme views on abortion.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Most people don't see a silver lining to rape and incest

(#294179)
HankP's picture

but Republicans do. What's next, rapist's rights? Why shouldn't they have visitation rights to their rapey offspring?

I blame it all on the Internet

Eh

(#294243)
Bird Dog's picture

Now you're just smearing. The content of your comment, such as it is, contains a startling degree of ignorance and bigotry towards GOP positions and attitudes on the subject.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

bigotry towards a political position

(#294512)

The dumbness of that hurts me a little.

Point missed

(#294663)
Bird Dog's picture

Yes, GOPers have said dumb things as well as things that are viewed as "fringe". The point is that Hank is engaging in his usual practice of taking those dumb/extremist things and applying them across an entire party. That is the ignorant/bigoted part of the equation. I regret that that whooshed by you.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I'm not following you down the dumb hole

(#294688)

and pretending you don't know that bigotry can't be directed towards political groups, issues, or people who like vanilla ice cream and listen to Elton JOhn.  

Thank you for the...

(#294733)
Bird Dog's picture

...substanceless insult. I regret that you're either unwilling or unable to understand the point.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

"The rape thing"

(#294675)

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10/31/john-koster-opposes...

 

It's so fringe! Just like sarah palin-- NO one ever took her seriously! 

 

And Ni**erhead! Fringe! Santorum. FRINGE.

 

The GOP is simply being smeared by the left wing by pointing out the things they do and say! Why, I know a guy who votes straight-ticket GOP who never once said something stupid about raping women! So, SMEAR YOU BIGOT.

Now you're cherrypicking

(#294678)
HankP's picture

defined as "quoting Republicans".

I blame it all on the Internet

Ha.  Yeah.  Too bad the only

(#294283)

Ha.  Yeah.  Too bad the only people bothering to voice this nuanced position on rape are knuckle-dragging idiots.  When that stops, you'll have a point.

Crazy Republicans are Crazy

(#294273)
HankP's picture

sorry to have to point that out.

 

But I encourage Republicans to keep talking about the different varieties of rape and how a raped woman should have no choices as often as possible. Please.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Nope, still a smear

(#294360)
Bird Dog's picture

It is apparent that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend the TNR piece, resorting instead to bigotry-filled substanceless commentary.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I understand that Republicans are obsessed with rape

(#294376)
HankP's picture

and continue to catalog and label the various forms it can take, so they can feel good about themselves when they pass laws making it impossible for a raped woman to have an abortion. And yes, various superstitious beliefs are involved. But it's an ugly minority position, so as I said please continue discussing it.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Thank you,

(#294383)
Bird Dog's picture

for confirming what you don't understand about Republicans, and for confirming prejudices about same. 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Here it is

(#294388)
HankP's picture

in a short, easy to read form that everyone can understand:

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Thanks for the confirmation

(#294465)
Bird Dog's picture

Take left-wing created propaganda and a liberal's are then colored.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Not propaganda, simple quotes nt

(#294468)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

I am a Republican

(#294945)
Bird Dog's picture

Just barely. Most Republicans, nearly 80% of them, are with me that abortion should not illegal in all cases. The facts are here.

So when you say, unconditionally and without any qualification whatsoever, that the GOP is the "party of rape" or about "how extreme Republicans are about forcing rape victims to bear their rapists children" or that "most people don't see a silver lining to rape and incest but Republicans do", you are saying something that is provably false.

You are smearing an entire party for views that only one-fifth hold. By your phraseology, you are trafficking in a lie. I conclude, based on the facts cited in the above link, that your comments contain startling degrees of hate, ignorance and bigotry. Yeah, we get it, you're offended by a political position, but that does not give you the right to spread smeary, false claptrap, the kind you see from fanatical left-wing zealots. You're not entitled to lie about a party just because you have really, really strong feelings against it.

BTW, 13% of Democrats also adhere to "no exceptions" versus 22% for Republicans. Using your own incredibly stupid logic, I could say that the Dems are the party of rape, but I won't because I know it's a false claim to make for either party.

I find it similarly incredulous that catchy would insult me rather than rein in the extremist and dishonest blather coming from you. Far as I'm concerned, he went down the dumb hole the moment he chose to align with his tribe by ignoring your provably false and dishonest comments and instead deciding to insult the conservative. Either he really doesn't get it or he's being dishonestly disingenuous himself.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Fascinating

(#294969)
HankP's picture

because here's the section of the Republican Party Platform of 2012 that deals with this issue -

 

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

 

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form – and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

 

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

 

This goes far beyond what you claim as your position and that of a majority of Republicans. So how do we explain that 80% of the party disagrees with the platform? It is quite puzzling.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

When you can't defend, then you deflect

(#294991)
Bird Dog's picture

The 2012 GOP platform is unchanged from the 2008 GOP platform, and earlier platforms for that matter on the subject of abortion. It says exactly nothing about the rape/incest exception. In fact, had you made the choice of learning something instead of resorting to ignorance/bigot-laden hate speech, you would have known the stance, i.e., it no takes no position on the subject.

Meantime, your falsehood is still out there, unedited and uncorrected, as are all your other false and dishonest comments.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Wrongeroo

(#295003)
HankP's picture

unless you don't understand what a personhood amendment is, because the result of passing it is that a fertilized egg has the same rights as an actual human being. It means that abortion for any reason whatsoever is considered murder, and only in a situation where the Mother faces imminent death is abortion considered justifiable homicide (and maybe not even then).

 

So if Republican are so moderate about abortion, how does this plank keep getting inserted in their platform, and why do so many Republican politicians fully endorse it? Either the party's been hijacked by extremists - in which case I'd recommend that non-extremists leave the party - or the support for these extreme positions is much bigger amongst the rank and file than you think.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

False

(#295020)
Bird Dog's picture

You're failing to understand Factcheck.org tells you, so this conversation is over. There's no point beating you over the head with more facts. Either you get it or you don't, and it's clear that you don't.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I accept your concession

(#295022)
HankP's picture

personhood amendment = no abortions for any reason. I'd walk away from defending that as well.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Sorry, no

(#295023)
Bird Dog's picture

You still don't get it.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You mean you vote Republican

(#294964)

Hank clearly stated "so they can feel good about themselves when they pass laws making it impossible"

 

Do you pass laws?

 

Hank gave a list of quotes from elected Republicans.

 

Are you an elected Republican?

 

I don't understand why you are taking personal offense on behalf of elected Republicans, when you apparently agree with Hank that what those elected Republicans said was abhorrent.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Whatever

(#294987)
Bird Dog's picture

Hank also said that the GOP is the "party of rape" or about "how extreme Republicans are about forcing rape victims to bear their rapists children" or that "most people don't see a silver lining to rape and incest but Republicans do". All of which are provably false. What you quoted was typical Hank hyperbole, not even worth mention. I'll take your silence as consent as well. This really is a faith-based community of leftists. What I see now is the tribe circling the wagons, defending dishonesty and falsehood.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Consent of what?

(#294993)

Jeepers.

 

I'm not going to discuss anything further here until after the election. 

 

Hopefully people will chill out after that. 

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

It was your choice

(#294996)
Bird Dog's picture

And you chose to challenge my challenge of Hank's comments and go silent on Hank's provably false statements. The wagons must be circled, after all. The tribe must be defended, even when one of the members traffics in falsehoods.

And it's also your choice to converse or not to converse. So, whatever.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Well,

(#294989)

it is one-sided as to which party muses out loud about the sunny side of rape. Or brings the legitimacy of rape into question. Maybe the gop are the party of optimists.

 

 

Another defense of dishonesty and falsehood

(#294992)
Bird Dog's picture

And more silence taken as consent.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

In fact, you clearly understood the context

(#294965)

of the discussion from the beginning because you yourself stated above "This has been discussed re the politicians with extreme views on abortion."

 

And to add to my examples, Hank's graphic says "The Republican Party"

 

Why are you now trying to take this personally?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

Republicans are good people

(#294955)
stinerman's picture

I know plenty of them.  The unfortunate truth is that they don't vote for good people.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

I'll take that as a...

(#294959)
Bird Dog's picture

...non-response because it has nothing to do with what I said.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You know exactly what I meant

(#294975)
stinerman's picture

Assuming 22% of  Republican voters adhere to the "no exceptions" position (which I have no reason to doubt), I can guarantee you that more than 22% of elected Republicans adhere to the same.  Republican politicians are generally more extreme than their constituents.  Democratic politicians are generally more moderate.

 

The same goes with the rest of what Hank said.  The rank and file Republican is usually a fine person and has reasonable policy preferences.  They're largely good people, but they seem to vote for bat-merde crazy nutjobs.  I've said it to you several times that you'd get more of what you wanted if you were simply a conservative Democrat.  The Democrats are the moderate party these days, and I don't see that changing any time soon.  Not as long as believing that God created man in his current form on the 6th of 7 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago is a litmus test for running as a Republican.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Yes, I do know what you meant

(#294985)
Bird Dog's picture

And it's non-responsive to what I said about Hank's falsehood. I'll take it that you agree with his falsehoods as you're challenging me and silent to Hank's comment, so silence is consent.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

I'm not interested in your lovers' quarrel

(#295011)
stinerman's picture

I was pointing out your comment that a good 80% of Republicans aren't completely against abortion.  Like I said, I believe that, I'm simply pointing out that more than 80% of the folks you guys elect are completely against abortion.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

That's An Overstatement. . .

(#295015)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .unless you're talking opposition to abortion with the standard "rape, incest, or life of the mother" exceptions.*

*--and "health of the mother" if constructed to exclude dodgy psychological excuses.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

You're right

(#295113)
stinerman's picture

I had it both ways in my noggin.  I meant 20% in the later case.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

If The Democrats Are The Moderate Party. . .

(#294982)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .it's because the nation as a whole has said "Absof***inglutely not!" to their more insane policy preferences, to the point where even the Kuciniches of the institution mostly shrug and let moderate positions prevail without much of a fight. For all of the Democratic hysteria over Republicans, the same has more or less been true about Republicans. We're nowhere near even significant legal restrictions on abortion, let alone forcing rape victims to bear children. I suspect we never will be, even if the pile of crappy legal reasoning (though it came out more or less correctly in outcome IMO) that is Roe v. Wade is flushed by a later USSC.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

As Hank said

(#294951)

it's an ugly minority position.

 

But as the quotes Hank supplied suggest, it's an ugly minority position taken by a significant number of republican candidates and elected representatives particularly those who have infested state legislatures and a position tacitly supported by pretty much the whole party caucus, when the alternative might lead to the election of a democrat.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Except...

(#294958)
Bird Dog's picture

...Hank didn't say that. He took a minority position that he abhors and provably falsely applied it across an entire party.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You vote for them

(#294960)

you own what they get up to once they're elected.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

I'll take that as a...

(#294963)
Bird Dog's picture

....non-response. This isn't about me or my voting patterns, this is about Hank spreading provable falsehoods. And I'll take your silence as consent, that you agree with Hank's falsehoods. Like I keep saying, this is a faith-based community, not fact-based, with your faith being Big Dumb Liberalism.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

And I'll take your vote as consent

(#294966)

to the likes of what Hank quoted.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Well, you could

(#294983)
Bird Dog's picture

But your contention would be faith-based as I already expressed my position.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

"Startling" Would Imply We Hadn't Seen It Before

(#294269)
M Scott Eiland's picture

That is certainly not the case. Nor are we likely to stop seeing it for a while, particularly if The Chosen One finally fails to be gifted with another strike.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

No

(#294196)
brutusettu's picture

There's not much celebrating by Akins & Mourdocks for the people that helped execute Jesus, afact.

 

Rapist making the baby is teh evil.

Rapist have had made a baby is a miracle from God.

 

 

Dog pissing on carpet, bad.

Owner shoving dog's face in piss, miracle for the dog that the owner knows it's alive.

 

 

Always look on the bright side of life.

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

This is a curious take on the "why does God allow evil"

(#294153)
mmghosh's picture

issue in general.

 

Take this argument.

 

But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about.

Making God an accessory to murder is not good theology IMO.

In other words,

(#294168)
Bird Dog's picture

the author doesn't know what Mourdock believes.

Mourdock's fault was in his presuming to know God's will. This is also seems true.

And in our neighborhood at least, there are lots of people who are offended that anyone, especially a man, would disagree with their opinion on abortion.

This neighborhood too, it appears.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Exhale

(#294142)

Nate's Nowcast number is over 75% a again. I'm not exactly loose, but I'm breathing now.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Sorry for going on topic, but...

(#294139)

....am I the only one here who finds it odd that a paper had to think twice abut this decision?  How does POTUS grant an interview that is off the record? 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

It's a negotiation

(#294140)

If you want to know something badly enough and the only condition is an off-the-record interview, well, you accept. But you're stuck with unsourced information, which makes it less credible. Unless they we're expecting him to say, "Hey, I'm swapping wives with Mitt next Sunday," they were silly to agree to an off-the-record interview. 

 

From the interviewee's perspective, it gives power over the story. You're making the reporter go back and plead to use a quote. 

 

 

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864

Yes, but it's a negotiation that really shouldn't heppen

(#294234)

We both agree that this is absurd.  The whole point to interviewing the President is to get something straight from the horse's mouth with full attribution.  Otherwise just hit up his flacks or cut and paste a press release.

I'm basically lamenting just how shiddy the press has become.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Totally correct

(#294313)

Boneheaded move on the newspaper's part. But a sad trend, like giving interviewees the opportunity to review quotes. Appalling. 

 

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...
-- General John B. Sedgwick, 1864

Ummmm

(#294236)
HankP's picture

Nothing new. Even St. Reagan did it

 

Timeline 23:58

 

I blame it all on the Internet

The Vikings are killing me

(#294137)
Bird Dog's picture

They're lucky to be down only 10 at the half.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Obama gets the Colin Powell endorsement

(#294136)
Bird Dog's picture

Romney gets The Naked Cowboy. A fair trade off!

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Hey all, quick warning.

(#294307)

The subject discussed below requires an open minded approach to race and race relations in this country.  Let's watch the hair-triggers on name calling regardless of whether you believe it to be accurate or not.  If you can't handle having assumptions challenged w/o resorting to name calling then don't participate. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

White men are going for Romney 65-32 percent.

(#294148)

I find that a remarkable statistic. Two out of every three white men you see is in the bag for America's lyingest politician. Reminds me quite a bit of the Bush years...did I tell you Iraq was a suicidally stupid idea? Yes. Did I tell you it'd lead to civil war and empower Iran? Yes. Did the numbnuts listen? Noooooo.

 

Can't say the Naked Cowboy has much respect to lose from me, but he just lost a bit more. Probably has to do with his audience of Times Square tourists from the Midwest, same crowd I have to wade through on the way to work. It's a sidewalk, dammit. Sidewalk. Either walk or step the hell to the side.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

90+% Of Black Men Will Vote For Obama

(#294251)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Somehow, this makes obsessing over a less than two to one similar breakdown for white men for Romney seem a tad, ahem, asinine.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Just to be picky, 65-32 is >= 2:1

(#294294)

Also, the 2004 exit poll might be useful context for this conversation (on either side): Bush versus Kerry split 62-37 white men and 11-88 African-American. 

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

And 97 Is Less Than 100

(#294295)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But I will stipulate that 65 is more than two thirds of 97.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

And what's the percentage of white men

(#294260)

in the Deep south who would vote for Obama? Or any black candidate for that matter? On the other hand I seem to recall a black candidate who ran against a white man in a democratic primary in Alabama and blacks seemed to be quite enthused with his white opponent.

 

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/06/davis_loss_in_black_precincts.html

 

Seems they voted for their interests rather than for their race. Doesn't quite fit with your point of view though does it?

90+% of Blah Men will vote against Romney?

(#294254)
brutusettu's picture

Strange things are strange.

 

 

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

I'm asking how you explain the stark racial disparity

(#294252)

in a country that has supposedly moved beyond all that. Do you have anything to offer besides 'the other side does it'?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

As Long As Democrats. . .

(#294253)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .don't merely ignore their version but actively give blacks a pass for openly voting by race (indeed, demanding a gerrymandering system that apportions congressional districts that are specifically designed to guarantee blacks will be able to vote for black candidates), I find the interest in white voting patterns that are far less extreme by Democrats to be hypocritical and laughable. The irritation factor at the blatant hypocrisy might account for a good part of the difference among white males (and might well lower the gender gap among white females).

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

So MSE do you happen to know

(#294257)

when was the last time that a black candidate was elected to a statewide office in the deep south? For extra credit can you tell us the exact date when the state of Alabama last voted to affirm their support for segregated schools?

When was the last time?

(#294278)

Don't know what counts as "deep" south,  but if you mean the ex-Confederacy,  then some examples are 200620082008 again.

Not ex confederacy

(#294303)

Virginia was a member of the confederacy but it's never been considered part of the Deep South.

Bobby Jindal Is Pretty Dark, Too

(#294284)
M Scott Eiland's picture

But I suppose someone will be along to pass down the official edict from the Racial Pandering Police that Texas and Louisiana don't count.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

The Deep South

(#294299)

 customarily includes

 

Alabama,Georgia,Louisiana,Mississippi and South Carolina and parts of East Texas but Texas as a whole is not included.

 

As for Bobby Jindal I'm not aware of Indians ever being enslaved in this country the same way as blacks were so your point is irrelevant. But I suspect you knew that.

 

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm a member of the Racial Pandering Police. You know those posting rule violations that you're always whining about.

 

 

Thus The Wording That Doesn't So Suggest

(#294304)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Happy to clarify. I'm fascinated by the ability of those dumb racist crackers* to discern the difference between very dark Indian-Americans and (often but not always lighter skinned) black Americans when exercising their alleged bigotry in the voting booth. Funny how that ignorance liberals are so fond of pointing out manifests itself in such subtle ways.

*--closed captioned for the irony impaired.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Hummm...Nice Finds eeyn...nt

(#294281)

Traveller

When Was The Last Time. . .

(#294259)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .a non-black candidate was elected in one of the majority black congressional districts authorized by the Civil Rights Act and subsequent court decisions?

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

For some reason you didn't answer either question

(#294263)

For the first the answer was during reconstruction before the franchise was restored to the southern whites who lost the Civil War. The state of Alabama voted to keep the provisions in the state constitution requiring segregated schools in 2004.

 

Regarding a non-black candidate in a majority black congressional district let me direct you to the Wikipedia page for Steve Cohen.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen

 

who has won repeatedly in a majority black district. Let me share a paragraph with you.

 

Cohen was challenged in the Democratic Primary by Tomeka Hart, a female African-American member of the Memphis School Board and Memphis Urban League President who was undefeated in elections up to that point. Cohen won the Democratic Primary with 89.2% of the vote on August 2, 2012[34] with the highest vote total in Tennessee's 9th Congressional District in recent history and the highest percentage vote for a Caucasian candidate running for office in a majority African-American district in history.

Impressive Fellow

(#294267)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Of course, the first time he ran for that district (sayeth Wiki) he lost by twenty-five points to a political neophyte (admittedly it was Harold Ford Jr., who got a boost from nepotism along with any racial factors) who happened to be black, and he was less than pleased:

"It is impossible for a person who is not African American to get a large vote in the African American community . . . against a substantial candidate. The fact is, I am white, and it doesn't seem to matter what you do."[6] Later, Cohen admitted that his statement was "impolitic" but also noted that "race is still an important factor in voting."

Sounds like the single example you came up with agrees with me, his later success notwithstanding.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I salute you sir!

(#294270)

Your response displays a degree of flexibility worthy of Mitt Romney!

 

But note the date of Mr. Cohens comments. It was 1996 and it seems that things have changed since he now has no problem winning overwhelmingly in a majority black district against black opponents. It's a novel thought but perhaps black voters are capable of considering more than race when they decide who best represents their interests.

If Obama Were a White Man this Election Would Be Over...

(#294266)

 

...there would be no question, and Romney and Racism, the only thing keeping Romney afloat, would sink like the whale excrement he is.

 

This is the truth of it...Romney still has the great good fortune of being a White Guy, this is why he is still in the race at all.

 

As a candidate and his positions are laughable...but he is White, and so he slogs on.

 

America has come a long way in reference to race...but white men are still tribal bad against the blacks.

 

Truth.

 

Traveller

Ugh, Trav, back it up with facts maybe?

(#294302)

White males had a nearly identical voting pattern 8 years ago. Now unless there was some confusion on Kerry's race your comment doesn't hold water.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

When I Can Shout Racism in a Theater on Fire?

(#294308)

...you trying to take away all my fun?

 

Breandanm98 noted this when he posted:

 

Also, the 2004 exit poll might be useful context for this conversation (on either side): Bush versus Kerry split 62-37 white men and 11-88 African-American. 

 

I was going to respond to him, but I'll send this to you instead...

 

I have my call under booth review.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Must Be The Windsurfing Tan

(#294305)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Those poor ignorant white boys can't tell the difference between black and *really* tan. Except maybe in Louisiana.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Actually I think they can

(#294310)

you're the one who's equating Indian Americans and African Americans.

79%

(#294309)

Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ap-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-harb...

If Obama Were White, HRC Would Have Been Nominated

(#294268)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Making the point moot.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Your explanation is spite? White men vote 2:1 for Republicans

(#294255)

because they want to spite Democrats? Or is it that they want to spite black people for voting Democrat? Or to spite bloggers who wonder aloud about the stark racial disparity in voting patterns. Which is it? I'm having trouble following your logic.

 

Also, why do blacks vote Democrat? You forgot to explain that part.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Would-be VP of the party

(#294258)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/shuck-and-jive-palin-...

 

Black people are not any more irrational than any other group. People vote their interests, and the gop has almost zero interest in the black community.

Right

(#294265)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Because that phrase hasn't passed into more general usage or anything. Looks like someone decided to get a column out of PDS and a desire for attention.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

So has the word "nigga"

(#294280)
HankP's picture

I heartily encourage you to use it the next time you're in a large group of mixed racial composition. Please report back and let us know how it went.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

I use that word all the time in mixed company

(#294311)

but I pronounce it 'Cat'.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I would have guessed you were a dog guy

(#294318)
HankP's picture

So how many times a day do you say "Private Cat, come over here"?

I blame it all on the Internet

Ha

(#294277)

...and faggot does too mean a bundle of sticks!

 

You're embarrassing yourself with this. 

Posting Rules -nt-

(#294285)
M Scott Eiland's picture

.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Ha

(#294287)

Run out of argument, work the refs.

Maybe he's out of arguments, maybe not.

(#294347)

But you are definitely out of line, regardless.

 

"you are embarrassing yourself" is an unambiguous attack on the commenter.

 

This is a first warning.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

At this point, it looks like

(#294298)

At this point, it looks like an automatic response.  Sort of like my gag reflex.

And you too.

(#294348)

Consider this a warning.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

Not My Problem

(#294256)
M Scott Eiland's picture

My response is an implicit "f*** you, hypocrites" to the Democratic innuendo* that the explanation is racism, given that they openly sanction the racism involved in blacks openly voting for black candidates because they're black. See you on Election Day.

 

*--not at all a "f*** you" to anyone here, of course.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Wait, so it's racism for black voters to vote for black

(#294262)

candidates? Is that what you're saying?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'm Saying That Any Innuendo. . .

(#294264)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .directed at white voters has to deal with the fact that the Powers That Be are giving black voters a pass for coming right out and saying "we're voting for Obama [or other black candidate] because they're black." Not to mention the entire legal mechanism designed to create congressional districts where black voters are expected to intentionally prefer black candidates over non-black candidates. To reiterate--f*** the Democrat hypocrites.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

No, you said "it's racism for black voters to vote for

(#294274)

black candidates." You said that. Here I'll roll the tape for you.

they openly sanction the racism involved in blacks openly voting for black candidates because they're black.

That's you, saying black voters are racist. I'm not sure why you brought racism into this, given that the original question was "why the disparity?" but you did. You think black voters are racist. 

 

So I take it that means you think white voters are racist too, is that correct? Or is it only racist when black people do it? I'm just trying to understand your analysis here.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Some Republicans are honest about it

(#294279)
HankP's picture

"My party is full of racists."

I blame it all on the Internet

You Left Off "Because They're Black"

(#294275)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Can't imagine why.

To recap: F*** Democrat hypocrites (no one here). See you on Election Day.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

So black voters are racist, according to you.

(#294276)

Are white voters racist too? I was hoping you could explain if your analysis works both ways, and if not, why not.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Sure they are!!

(#294293)

We had this same exact back and forth a little while ago.

 

By this measure, I guess you could also call a Jewish man racist for claiming that he and his are god's chosen people and dating only Jewish women.

 

It's the republican way. Ignore the inherent, vast power and wealth imbalance between the races in the usa and it all just boils down to semantics! Then you can get back to cutting taxes for wealthy people! Also, white christian males are the real victims.

 

I'm pretty sure the right side here ended up saying that blacks are hooked on the welfare state, which is why 90% of them vote democratic. I don't have the total recall like some here do, but I'm pretty sure... not going to go search through the archives.

There is no Jewish race though.

(#294386)

Jews are an ethnic group. I would call a man who dated only Jewish women narrow minded.

 

A Jew who votes only for Jewish politicians I would say is voting along ethnic lines.

 

One of the greatest accomplishments of the United States of America is having voted a black man for president. Imagine a white man winning the presidency in post-apartheid South Africa.

 

I have little doubt that racism is an important driver of Republican intransigence with Obama. But this is not so much reflected in voting patterns, which are almost totally aligned with ideology, as usual. It is reflected in the viciousness of the attacks on Obama. The birthers, the "you lie" in the middle of a State of the Union address, and the persistent theme that Obama is not a legitimate president. A theme not even Romney has made any effort to stop.

 

Obama's election was a proud moment for the country but it begat a shameful chapter for the GOP. The voting patterns of conservative white males are not the problem here.

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

My point

(#294387)

is that today's radical "conservatives" in the gop and other swamps like reason magazine like to downplay the issue with rhetoric by claiming a definition  of racism which applies to basically everyone on the planet while ignoring the power structure behind racism that is what the real injustice and problem is about. It really doesn't matter if somebody doesn't like someone for their race, but it does matter when a group with more systemic power, money and influence uses racial bias to keep another group down, or at least out of power.

 

Because you see it in this very thread... blacks voting for blacks is just as racist as every other form of racism. Everything equals out this way, both sides do it, and let's get back to cutting taxes for wealthy people. Convenient! Also willfully ignorant, disingenuous, or just plain racist. Take your pick.

I'm Saying That Any Democrat Arguing. . .

(#294282)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .that white voters are racist based on white male voting patterns need to deal with black voting patterns and call them racist, or they can f*** off (no one here).

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Not what you said. You said black voters *are* racist.

(#294289)

Strange that you've forgotten the comment so soon after making it, but I'm happy to read the transcript back to you:

"They openly sanction the racism involved in blacks openly voting for black candidates because they're black."

- M Scott Eiland

That's you, just a few short moments ago, calling blacks racist for voting for black candidates because they're black. Not at all where I was expecting this conversation to go, but from all you've said so far it would seem that you think only black voters are racist because they vote for black candidates. However, you do not think white voters are racist for voting for white candidates.

 

Care to explain the difference?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Actually, I Said No Such Thing

(#294290)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Given that I've seen no evidence that any significant number of whites are voting for white candidates because they're white. There's a whole government system designed to encourage black voters to vote for black candidates because they're black. That's a rather significant difference, if the agenda isn't to accuse white voters of racism in the hope of benefiting Democrats.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

"A whole government system"

(#294317)
HankP's picture

Do tell.

 

Also, Jordan is correct, you stated that blacks are racist for voting for blacks.

I blame it all on the Internet

If they voted on the basis of skin color...

(#294355)
Bird Dog's picture

...above all else, then the answer is apparent.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

If nobody votes that way,

(#294359)

then we're just indulging in fantasy. Speaking of which, did you know there's an entire shadow government built to corral the black racist vote? I just learned that today myself.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

It's Called Racial Gerrymandering

(#294363)
M Scott Eiland's picture

And it's been around for quite a while. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

An NRO op-ed.

(#294367)

Is that really the most convincing piece of evidence you could come up with?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Are You Denying The Existence Of Racial Gerrymandering?

(#294369)
M Scott Eiland's picture

A quick Google search might spare some hasty retractions later.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I'm denying that there's anything worth learning in the NRO.

(#294371)

I'm well aware of racial gerrymandering, and I've looked through some of the cases surrounding it. It involves a controversial practice of creating majority minority voting districts.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

So Stop Wasting Our Time

(#294373)
M Scott Eiland's picture

You knew what I was referring to, and responded to it with a bunch of Sniper Grandma nonsense comments in spite of that. Pretty weak.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Yep

(#294356)
M Scott Eiland's picture

I'm not sure why this concept requires explaining. If a room full of KKK types was saying, "We're going to vote for the white candidates because they're white!", I'm pretty sure "THIS IS RACIST!" subtitles wouldn't be needed.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

No, Jordan is not correct.

(#294349)

M Scott clearly said, from his first (and quoted by Jordan) comment, that blacks who vote for blacks because they are black are voting in a racist way.

 

He stated a simple tautology, kids.

 

A simple, plain as day, obvious as the sky is blue, clear as crystal, TAUTOLOGY.

 

And you think you caught him saying something he did not? It would be funny, but you guys are serious.

 

M Scott is an exceedingly careful writer. A lot of what he writes rubs me the wrong way, some of it exceedingly the wrong way, but you will not win an argument with this guy through careless reading. He is going to beat you every time.

 

Exceedingly yours, etc., etc.

 

M Aurelius

This was clear enough to Larkin, whose patriotism rested on the notion that England was the worst place on earth with the possible exception of everywhere else.

A tautology, eh?

(#294352)

So all black voters who vote for black candidates because they are black are by definition racist, eh? Can't be any other, more legitimate reason to make that choice? It's not a tautology. 

 

But more importantly: what about all the others? Ninety percent of black voters will vote for a black President. Is every single one of them racist? Half? Twenty five percent? 0.01%? Exactly what percentage of the electorate is motivated by what we might call racism? Scott won't even take a stab at a guess...but it's the only explanation he'll offer for why blacks vote as they do. And whites, same thing? Nah, man. Whites vote for white candidates because they're white out of spite. See they're tired of all the accusations of racism coming from the liberal left. And that's M Scott Eiland's explanation of racial politics in the present day US of A.

 

He stepped in it today. There's no careless reading...he made his position absolutely clear. Black voters voting black, only explanation offered: racism. White voters voting white, only explanation offered: justified spite. When challenged: hey, I meant only the racist ones. Oh? And which ones are those? Silence.

 

He dug himself in a hole. You don't have to stand in it with him.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

As I Pointed Out. . .

(#294354)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .there's no evidence that *any* appreciable number of white voters vote for white candidates because they're white--never mind that whatever miniscule numbers who do don't feel free to brag about it in environments that could get them fired or expect support from Republican intellectuals if they are indiscreet enough to do so. They vote for *Republicans* in larger numbers than Democrats are apparently comfortable with, but that's not the same thing. DC pointed out that white males voted for Bush over Kerry at rather close to the same rate as they apparently plan to for Romney over Obama. You can ignore my wording every single time if the mood strikes you, but it remains the same.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

It does remain the same.

(#294358)

Asked why whites vote 2:1 Republican, you say "spite." Asked why blacks vote 9:1 Democrat, you say "racism." Accused of saying what you're saying, you say you only meant "some of them." Ok, obviously, but how many? Radio silence. You did note however that there's "a whole government system" designed to line up the black racist vote though, so it must be pretty substantial.

 

Nobody's ignoring your wording: you stepped in it all on your own.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Sorry. . .

(#294361)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .but refusing to answer questions in exactly the form you demand doesn't mean your rewording of what I said becomes correct. I made no representations about what percentages of the black vote distribution was due to racism--I simply noted that racist reasons for choosing a candidate were considered acceptable and were even encouraged for black voters and were most definitely not for white voters. MA--who has no ideological reasons to take my side--called you on it. Game over.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

You mentioned "a whole government system"

(#294362)

designed to line up and deliver the black racist vote, didn't you? Now, it's not a percentage, but that sounds like it must be a pretty substantial population. A whole government system? Damn, that sounds like it must be a lot of people. Enough to throw votes to congressmen, judges, state senators. I mean, we're talking millions of people, easy. Set, match.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Nope

(#294364)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Just a law that allows congressional districts to be specifically tailored for the specific purpose of making sure that black voters in the district will have the power to elect black representatives. Again, it's called racial gerrymandering. This is actually news to you?

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I'm aware of no such law.

(#294366)

Can you point to any piece of legislation in the US code that mandates a certain skin color for candidates standing for office? I'll be right here waiting.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yawn

(#294368)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Jordan, if you want to hilariously and blatantly change the wording of everything I post to make whatever arcane point you want to make in your comments, that's fine. MA's amused reaction to your earlier comments should clue you in that it really isn't working.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Now hold on. You implied that there's a US law that mandates

(#294370)

that certain electoral districts stand black candidates so that black voters can vote for those candidates. I'm no expert on election law, but I'm not aware of any legislation or judicial decision that creates requirements for the skin color of the candidate. I'm seriously willing to learn though: please point out the statute. I want to know more about the black racist shadow government.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I'm Not Responsible For What You Think My Comments Imply

(#294372)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Particularly when the comments that are tendered in reply are in serious Hiroshiman Sniper Grandma territory. The law (the Civil Rights Act of 1965) has been interpreted to allow majority minority districts to be created intentionally for the purpose of allowing an artificially created black majority to elect black candidates (which in practice they almost always do), although (thankfully) conservative Supreme Courts have smacked around some of the more egregious efforts (ironically aiding Democrats by forcing them against their will to put more (overwhelmingly Democratic voting) black voters in non-majority minority districts. The rest of the (manufactured from whole cloth) material in your comments is nonsense and nonresponsive.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

As usual, you're only telling half of the story

(#294379)
HankP's picture

the reason for majority minority districts is because prior to their creation several states (mostly, but not always, in the South) intentionally created districts where minorities were always a small minority of the voting population and black politicians were never elected.

 

I couldn't find a graph, but it looks like there were no black, hispanic or asian representatives from the end of reconstruction until the new deal, about 6 or 7 after that, and then after the civil rights act the number steadily increased to ~ 40 blacks, ~20 hispanics and ~7 asians.

 

So there's a reason this was done, it wasn't racist liberals doing it out of thin air, but doing it because racist conservatives had effectively disenfranchised minorities since the end of the reconstruction.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

So The Answer Is "Yes"

(#294397)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Majority minority districts are specifically designed to guarantee that black voters would be to be able to vote in black candidates because they were black. Could you point this out to Jordan? He seems to think otherwise. Thanks!

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

No, you're missing the point

(#294399)
HankP's picture

they're designed so black people can run for office at all and have any chance of being elected. It's like you're trying to intentionally ignore everything about Jim Crow laws and how they were designed to eliminate any representation, black or white, for minorities.

I blame it all on the Internet

No, I've Got The Point

(#294401)
M Scott Eiland's picture

And you just reiterated the point--the districts were created to allow black people to vote for black candidates because they are black (as opposed to just being a candidate who reflects their interests and might be of any race, but would have to compete for the majority vote in the district on normal terms). Thanks for the help!

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Still missing it

(#294402)
HankP's picture

but I'm not surprised, conservatives seem to have some sort of memory failure when it comes to Jim Crow and how it distorted and damaged our country.

 

FYI majority minority districts don't only elect black people or hispanic people.

I blame it all on the Internet

Nope.

(#294375)

What's that word "artificially" doing in your explanation of election law? All electoral districts are artificial...you think Moses handed down the voter rolls or something? Anyways...

 

The VRA somewhat controversially allows the creation of majority minority districts whose voters can then elect a candidate of their choosing. This can of course be any qualified candidate from the district, regardless of race. So when you refer to it as a law

That allows congressional districts to be specifically tailored for the specific purpose of making sure that black voters in the district will have the power to elect black representatives.

You're misinterpreting the law itself. It of course gives those districts the power to elect white, hispanic, or Palestinian representatives as well, if they so choose. You assume black districts will inevitably elect black representatives only if you make racist assumptions like "those people only vote for their own kind," and so forth. Now, you've made it clear that you're not responsible for what your comments imply...but that is what your comments imply.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

There is Evidence and There is Common Sense...

(#294357)

...there may or may not be evidence as you maintain...I don't know.

 

I do know that to say that only blacks are racists is, on its face, ludicrous...you can write it as carefully as you want from now to the end of time...no one will believe it.

 

It seems more of a projection and means of corralling Backs in ever so clever new and invidious boxes.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Traveller

You don't have to stand in it with him...lol....nt

(#294353)

Traveller

In Fairness, I Do Screw Up Wording On Occasion

(#294351)
M Scott Eiland's picture

And not as good as I used to have eyesight betrayed me today when I was reading two adjacent and slightly different lines and kept mixing them up, once causing a deleted comment when I shouldn't have. But when I repeat something three times and use the same wording each time, it's a sign that I'm pretty sure of something and that I'm wording it that way for a reason.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Only If They Do So *Because* They Are Black

(#294321)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Which any number of black public figures have admitted--even bragged--about doing, and liberal intellectuals have defended. Congressional districts are constructed during every re-apportionment to specifically allow and encourage blacks to vote for black candidates. There is no comparable situation with white voters and white candidates. This is objective reality--there are multiple Supreme Court cases that refer to it, and endless megabytes of public discussion on the matter.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

What proportion of black voters vote exclusively

(#294322)

according to skin color? It's a relief that you're stepping back from suggesting that *all* black voters are racists, but give us a number. A percentage. Cite a case. Post a link. How much of the black electorate is composed of racist voters?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Doesn't Have To Be All

(#294323)
M Scott Eiland's picture

The white male vote is only 15% off center, and the Democrat mindset is to throw around innuendo about it. The point is that it is considered *acceptable* by the Race Pandering Police (no one here) for black voters to state openly that they are voting for black candidates because they are black (and, of course, for whites to do so by referring to it as "hope" and "change," but that's a whole different kettle of euphemisms). A white person who does likewise for white politicians is branded as the moral equivalent of a KKK member (and, naturally, representative of what *all* Romney voters are *really* thinking).*

*--asinine liberal argument as seen on Facebook!!!

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

See my note to Jordan

(#294325)

about different regions of the country. The white male vote is waaaaay off center in the Deep south. The national averages don't look as bad because that gets diluted by the rest of the country. And while of I'm not referring to anyone here people who claim that white racism is not a problem in the southern part of the US are either liars or being willfully blind.

But now we're back where we started.

(#294324)

This whole racist detour has explained a lot about your odd chain-letteresque theories of a racist shadow government, but it has nothing to do with party preferences, which was my original question. Why the enormous 2:1 preference of white males for Republicans? Why the 9:1 preference among blacks for Democrats? Assuming out and out racists (i.e. people who vote entirely based on the race of the candidates) are only a still-unspecified subset of the electorate, how do you account for the enormous racial disparity in party affiliation?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Not Really

(#294327)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Because we've had a number of comments here that indicate that, yes, this is about trying to impugn the legitimacy of white Republican voting by suggesting that it is racist, and I'm not interested in cooperating with that. Although one might suggest that given that dumping on white Southerners is pretty much a DNC-sanctioned sport, I'd have to say that anyone (no one here) who claims to wonder why the Democratic Party's share of the white Southern vote is so small is either lying or don't bother to read their own posts.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Oh not all white southerners MSE

(#294330)

Plenty of my relatives don't have a racist bone in their bodies. Yes that's right I live in the south and if I recall correctly you don't. Apparently that doesn't stop you from thinking you have a better understanding of the region and the issue. Unfortunately some of my relatives are racist to some degree. It's more of a problem with the older ones. Society has changed but for a person raised from birth with Jim Crow and segregation it's hard to overcome that early upbringing. Some do a better job than others but I make allowances for the older folk. I'm not going to stop talking to an 80 year old relative because they can't completely overcome their early upbringing.

 

Your statement that bashing white southerners is a DNC sanctioned sport is untrue. The democratic party wants those folks back -- but not if it requires an acceptance of racism. Unfortunately the Republican party in the south doesn't make that distinction quite so clear.

Oh Sure, Not All

(#294336)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Not the 10 to 12 percent remainder who vote the "enlightened" way. Heck, if the Democrats are in a generous mood, they might allow that half of the white Southern males out there could vote Republican without triggering accusations of racism (though I'm sure they're still up for condescending disappointment with their "misguided" choices). But that's the go-to argument: "the only reason we don't win is white racism"--to which the appropriate reply is "See you on Election Day--don't be surprised at the reaction that attitude gets you afterwards, win or lose."

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Their attitude won't bother me much MSE

(#294342)

you see no matter who wins or loses on election day I'll still be a hell of a lot better off than the overwhelmingly majority of folks who think they've "won" something if Romney is elected. Spite may feel good to some folks but it won't pay their bills. The guys pulling the strings of the Republican party will have won something tangible of course but that won't help the rest. I guess though if you don't have much going for you in life spite must look pretty good.

So: spite. And racism.

(#294329)

This is where we were hours ago. Your theory about the massive racial disparity in party preferences comes down to spite and racism. White voters vote Republican out of spite: they want to spite Democrat bloggers who suggest their motives might be racial in nature. Whereas black voters, or some subset you refuse to specify, vote out of racism, because they're racist.

 

Question: how can you be sure black voters aren't voting Democrat out of spite, because people, like you, for example, suggest that they are racist? Again the eternal question: why doesn't your analysis work both ways?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I wonder if MSE can explain

(#294331)

how Alabama voting to keep segregation enshrined in the state constitution in 2004 fit's into his narrative? I'm having a hard time seeing it myself but hey maybe there's a logical explanation.

Actually, you damn well did.

(#294292)

It's right up there in the comments for the world to read.

 

I think it's interesting that you believe there's an entire shadow government designed to inculcate black racism...first I've ever heard of such an outlandish idea, and I had no idea you gave credence to wild, racist conspiracy theories. Just when you think you know somebody....

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Posting Rules

(#294296)
M Scott Eiland's picture

And I repeat my observation that your arguments falsely equate "x racial type voter voting for x racial type candidate is racist" with "x racial type voter voting for x racial type candidate *because* x racial type candidate is x racial type is racist." I can't possibly be more clear about stating that.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Nope, I'm responding to your arguments as written.

(#294300)

Your distinction is a false one: you've said you believe there's an entire governmental apparatus or "shadow government" devoted to encouraging black racism in elections, with the clear implication that such racism alone explains the disparity in party preferences among black voters. We still can't get you to explain how same reasoning doesn't apply to white voters.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Deleted

(#294291)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Thanks for editing the characterization--though I note the lack of parallel construction regarding your question on white voters.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

That is an interesting

(#294286)

That is an interesting position to take but clearly avoids the other position Jordan is referring to.  Well, I'm not surprised.

GOP

(#294288)

"Our racists are more numerous, wealthy and powerful than your racists"

Not at all sure why you find this remarkable

(#294249)

It's pretty close to the Kerry/Bush breakdown 8 years ago.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

How do you explain it? -nt-

(#294250)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

How do I explain what?

(#294297)

That white men voted the same way regardless of the race of the candidate? Hmmmmm, I'm not a doctor or nuthin' but I think this is the part where you do the explaining of what you find remarkable.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Why do white men vote 2:1 Republican? Any theories? -nt-

(#294301)

.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I have theories.

(#294314)

but Mrs Cuddly calls me to dine.  I'll follow-up and explain why I as a bona fide white male would not vote for your party as it's currently set up.

 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Even if the Republicans Were Running a Magic Diaper Wearing

(#294315)

...direct descendant of the Malefactors of Great Wealth, a Robber Barron and liar of great skill, being almost next to a spawn of Satan?

 

Sure I understand voting for this ugly dog rather than a successful Democrat that has unparalleled foreign policy success, (few dead American Soldiers), and probably carefully saved the country from another great depression...

 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

Trav, you'd have to ask somebody who is voting for him.

(#294339)

I'm voting 'other'.  I've said it a few times here. 

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Hey, Now. . .

(#294316)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .they rejected Smedley Fluffington the Fourteenth during the primaries, didn't they? Although they managed to avoid the unapologetic anti-Mormon bigtory that seems to be DNC-approved in doing so. How very narrow of them.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

We have to be more precise here Jordan

(#294306)

White men in the Northeast and Upper Midwest don't usually vote 2-1 Republican. They tend to vote democratic and in some states strongly so.

 

In the Deep South though the ratio is far higher than 2-1. In the 2008 election for example Obama recieved 10% of the white vote in Alabama, 11% in Mississippi, 14% in Louisiana and 23% in Georgia. That's for both sexes but probably roughly correct for males.

Thanks, Floater, This Makes Sense, Comports to Reality...nt

(#294312)

Traveller

65-32? Remarkably Good...What Other Country (Re Racism USA)

(#294156)

 

...has an elected head of state that is different, at all, from their majority ethnic component? Merkel, Germany? No one across Europe, and can you imagine an ethnic Korean, though Japanese citizen, becoming Premier? A Japanese in South Korea, a non-Chinese in China?!?

 

The idea is just ridiculous, even in the most liberal of countries, see Australia or New Zealand.

 

So Actually, the United States is doing quite well in regards to Racism.

 

When I argue against the Obama, I often note that he does have to be the Good N*****....this is just the truth of how deeply racism runs....almost genetically...across populations.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

Trav, it's either good or bad

(#294169)

Here in the US it's good.  South Africa circa 1984, not so good.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Alberto Fujimori? Manmohan Singh? n/t

(#294159)
mmghosh's picture

No, I Thought About Peru...Of Course Fujimori sits in Jail...

(#294160)

 

...I think of Peru being heavily Asian, having been there a couple of times and having a number of Peruvian born Chinese clients, but I would still suggest that Asians have had a disproportionate influence across Peru despite the following:

 

The Peruvian census does not contain information about ethnicity so only rough estimates are available. Its population can be composed of Mestizos: 47%,[1] Amerindians: 31%,[2] European: 18.5%,[1] Afro-Peruvians: 2%,[3] Asians and others: 1%.[4] 

 

Mr. Singh seems entirely Indian to me, even having been born in Pakistan in 1932. Peru seems to be the only outlier and there are specific historical reasons for this.

 

Lastly, I don't consider women to be a different ethnic group within whatever grouping they belong...lol

 

Best Wishes, Traveller

 

 

I assure you that Sikhs

(#294161)
mmghosh's picture

are a separate religio-ethic group here, very much in the minority.

 

Your politician Mrs Nikki Haley is also ethnically Sikh.  I do agree with your thesis that the USA is unique in enabling minorities. 

Are they very separate in India?

(#294164)
HankP's picture

Are they discriminated against?

I blame it all on the Internet

Yep, it is a pretty picture book

(#294116)
Bird Dog's picture

Obama's plan for jobs etc. Lowry is right.

The plan purports, first, to be a plan, and second, to outline a second-term agenda distinct from his first-term agenda. It fails on both counts. It cobbles together his current policies with some ill-defined new bullet points to barely cover 20 pages largely devoted to nice pictures of the president.

 

Make no mistake: What the Obama agenda lacks in substance, it makes up in graphic design. The pamphlet has as much gloss and as many soft-focus photos as a copy of Playboy. The seriously besotted Obama fan might have to assure friends, “No, really — I only read the Obama second-term plan for the policy details.”

With all the glossy graphics, I guess there wasn't room for entitlement or immigration reform.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Neither entitlement nor immigration reform are related to job

(#294117)

creation. Did you actually read the plan? A lot of specific, numerical commitments in there. That's what most people usually call "substantive." 

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yep, I read it

(#294133)
Bird Dog's picture

It's the same old recycled bulls**t from his website, repackaged into a glossy pamphlet. Funny that Romney-Ryan were saying Obama has no plan, then Obama turns around and says, "Hey, look what I found!"

The title is "A Plan for Jobs and Middle-Class Security" I would say that immigration and entitlement reform both well fall under the category of middle-class security.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

You know you're right

(#294141)

Obama just isn't very specific and he doesn't emphasize immigration reform enough.

 

i think I'll vote for Romney instead.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

This is good

(#294104)

Cincinnati.com says that 800,000 people in Ohio received absentee ballots but have not yet returned them.   If they decide to show up on election day instead,  they will have to cast provisional ballots,  and the state cannot even start counting provisional ballots until November 17.   This is on top of the 200,000 or so "normal" provisional ballots.

 

If it comes down to Ohio the election could go on for weeks and weeks after November 6. 

I don't have time to get into voting machines,

(#294107)

but Ohio county election boards are replete with them. Nearly all of these machines have been proven highly insecure and vulnerable to manipulation of vote tallies...in some cases by swapping memory cards, in others by manipulating voter scan forms. Ohio is wonderfully positioned to hip-bump a close election, and nobody seems to give a good got damn. 

 

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/elections/votingsystems.aspx?page=...

 

There's also the slightly less credible but infintely sexier story about Tagg Romney's controlling interest in a fund that has controlling interest in Hart Intercivic, one of the Diebold spinoff companies (yeah that's right, Diebold simply changed their name) that provides election machines around the country. Hart machines are only used in 2 of Ohio's counties, but I believe those counties are populous & democratic. Hart Board members are key Romney donors. All that good stuff. Not much there there perhaps, but it's enough of a story to maybe get the media to look at the real story, which is that anybody who knows how to work a digital camera could mess with vote tallies throughout the state.

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/romney_linked_voting_machine_company_to_...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/20/romney-family-investmen...

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Jon Husted sent me unsolicited absentee ballot material

(#294111)
brutusettu's picture

I don't recall this happening before, and a little weird to send out unsolicited absentee balloting material if someone had earnest voter fraud concerns.

 

 

----Almost as good as certain areas of Cleveland getting billboard reminders that voter fraud is a felony.

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

Are you a registered democrat?

(#294112)

Voter caging by absentee ballot, whatever will they think of next?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

Oddly enough

(#294130)
stinerman's picture

I can look this up.  A person's party affiliation is public record in Ohio.

 

My friend Brutus is listed as unaffiliated...but that doesn't really mean too much.  "Affiliation" is determined by the party's ballot you selected in the last primary.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Ireland bought Liebold machines at great expense.

(#294110)

Modernisationa and all that. They were never used. Once the public caught on that 1. These things were a security joke with no paper trail 2. solved no actual problem other than inflating the minister responsible's ego, the opposition was enough to keep them mothballed. They've just been scrapped.

Giant mancrush for stinerman in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

(#294071)
HankP's picture

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I blame it all on the Internet

You make me fire up my windows box...

(#294129)
stinerman's picture

But seriously.  This isn't anything that even the most hardened anti-third party folks here could disagree with: if you're in a safe state, it doesn't matter who you vote for.  If you're in a swing state, it's a different story.

 

I don't think anyone here would seriously consider a vote for Rocky Anderson in Utah to be some sort of unforgivable sin like voting for Nader in Florida in 2000.  Our good friend MA is thinking of voting for Stein in NY.  No one jumped down his throat.

 

There's a reason why there are about 10 states that decide the election.  There's also a reason why we are generally compelled to vote for least worst.  The reason is the same: the 4th rate plurality voting system we have coupled with the Electoral College -- something that was the pinnacle of electoral science in 1787.

 

Once again, I ask that those of you who are worried I'm going to spoil the election*** to help me change the voting system so that I can't actually do that.

 

***I've already filled out my absentee ballot, so I've already helped throw the election to Romney or not.  We have to wait until the 6th to see if I have.  Also, I voted for a lot more Democrats than I did any other party.

 

 

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

Hey man, and eeyn too.

(#294138)

Is it unseemly to write in myself?  I figure WTF, it might look good on a resume' to say I actually got some votes* for presnit.  The downside is I'll draw votes away from Johnson but I doubt I'll bump him from 3rd to 4th place.

*PA will rue the day when they suspended voter ID laws.  "Hmmm, I didn't know 'Cuddly' was such a popular surname.  And to think they all happen to live in funeral homes.  Odd that."

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

Unseemly? Worse than that.

(#294183)

Don't do it man, if there's even a 1 in 10^853 chance that through some freak occurrence you could win.   None of us knows exactly what's involved in the secret second phase of the swearing in ceremony,  but think about this:  (1) when was the last time you heard of someone fathering a child after taking office as POTUS?  (2)  why did a cigar need to be involved in the Lewinsky business?

 

Nah, he'd be fine

(#294185)
HankP's picture

just send a case of bourbon to the White House every week and nothing would ever get done.

I blame it all on the Internet

I Feel Properly Chastised....nt

(#294072)

Traveller

Catchy bait

(#294063)

And I can't say I'm thrilled with it either. Obama still has his heart set on a grand bargain:

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

Classic Obama... negotiating with himself, and I have to say, giving away the store. If Obama wins, Dems make gains in the House and maybe also the Senate, and we're on the cusp of the fiscal cliff, then that's a moment of unparalleled leverage for the Dems. To give up the terms of a deal (heck, even off the record) that is to the right of Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of Six is just infuriating.

 

Is it too late for a primary challenge?

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Counterpoint: it sounds like a deal Republicans would be crazy

(#294092)

to reject. When they do, inevitably, reject it, they're going to look like crazy people. And they will reject it, because Obama will insist on a teensy weensy tax increase somewhere in the package, and Republicans today can no more agree to a tax increase than they can agree to worship Satan "just a little."

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Yeah

(#294096)

But that's already happened... have Republicans suffered electorally? Well, we'll see. I am expecting some House gains.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Important article

(#294060)

by Matt Bai here on Obama's campaign strategy.

 

Jordan and HankP will recall that during our recent dinner I wondered loudly why the Obama campaign didn't play up Romney's flip flops. Naively perhaps, I thought they were saving it as a coup de grace. The truth seems to be that Bill Clinton lobbied strenuously that they should paint Romney as a "severe" conservative, and that playing up his inconstancy would undermine that.

 

Bai argues quite convincingly that this was a mistake -- that while independents might be threatened by a radical conservative, they would also be threatened by a spineless flip-flopper who can't stand up to the conservatives. I would add that this would also have the convenient effect of muting conservative base enthusiasm.

 

I had praised the Obama campaign before, and I still think that tactically they have been very sound. But this was a major strategic blunder, and if Romney winds up winning Bai may have just identified the reason why.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Wait a second. They've been drilling Romney on flip-flops

(#294091)

constantly. "That just isn't true" was a kind of refrain throughout both debates, and Obama's out there now with his "Romnesia" stump speech. It's an interesting article if true, but it doesn't seem remotely based on what the campaign's doing right now, and has been doing since the convention.

 

Unless this guy's seeing an entirely different strategy in the swing state ads... at a national level Obama's been going after Romney as a "flip flopper" with a vengeance.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

There's a very big difference

(#294095)

Between calling someone a liar and calling them unprincipled, shifting positions, and without a core. That's the difference between the Santorum campaigns devastating ads showing Romney debating himself and the Obama campaign concentrating on Bain, the 47%, planned parenthood, and Big Bird. Obama has landed some nice blows, but I haven't seen the flip-flopper meme really drilled in.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

They don't want to

(#294123)
stinerman's picture

If they keep going flip-flopper on him, they'd have to air his Senate debate against Ted Kennedy.  Romney attacked him from the left, IIRC, on gay rights.

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

And Romney takes the opposite position now

(#294127)
HankP's picture

so I'm not seeing the problem, every position he's ever taken had at least one example of a significantly different position, often in the same campaign.

 

I blame it all on the Internet

Well, ok, but you can see flip flopper is what they're trying

(#294098)

for, right? I mean the whole Romnesia thing is a way to brand Romney as a guy who changes messages more often than he changes shirts. Obama in the debates wasn't leaning on the far right wingnut stuff as much as he was on the flip flopping. "That isn't true" and "that isn't what you've been saying for 6 months," etc.

 

I'd agree that the Obama people haven't really made the flip flopper meme stick, but to me it doesn't seem like lack of trying. Far from it.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Romnesia I will grant you

(#294099)

Hits that theme, but it is also of very recent vintage. And if there have been any memorable TV ads on the theme I haven't seen them.

 

Think of the Bush 2004 campaign, and how disciplined they were about Kerry being a flip-flopper from the summer (the flipping Kerry while wind-surfing), through the convention (flip-flops on the floor) through till the very end. (And they had so much less to go on that Obama has with Romney!) Message discipline counts for a lot.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Well, these are Democrats we're talking about.

(#294100)

Message discipline is about as likely as a mass conversion to Pentecostalism. Still, I disagree with the article: there has been no serious attempt to brand Romney as a far right winger, just this half hearted effort to brand him as a flopper. Article sounds like navel gazing to me.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Perhaps

(#294113)

Not so much right-winger, but certainly uncaring rich guy that makes his fortune canning working people.

"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs

Yup

(#294062)
HankP's picture

nobody likes a buls*&ter - except Republicans.

I blame it all on the Internet

Nobody likes a bulls*&tter? From what I can tell

(#294101)

people love bulls*&tters.  I see bumper stickers, yard signs, T-shirts, the whole nine yards; some say Romney some say Obama.  I'd have to say that bulls*&tters are well loved.

In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome. 

I'm Grabbing This Headline Before Someone Else Does

(#294059)
M Scott Eiland's picture

PANDA MAULS TIGERS

Babe Ruth
Reggie Jackson
Albert Pujols
Pablo "Kung Fu Panda" Sandoval

The world will never be the same.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Who is the only republican candidate for US Senate

(#294058)

..for whom Mitt Romney has cut an ad that is still airing?

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

The party of rape

(#294067)
HankP's picture

they say they hate it, but they can't seem to stop talking about it.

I blame it all on the Internet

Damn Hollywood

(#294041)
Bird Dog's picture

Casting a 5'8" 40-something Tom Cruise in the role of a 6'5" 30-something Jack Reacher.

 

I'm glad someone finally made a movie of one of Child's books.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Awesome. One note though:

(#294047)

I'm not familiar with the books, but Jack Reacher is, well, it's kind of an unfortunate name. And title. Let's put it this way: the inevitable porn industry ripoffs won't have to change a word.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Invictus

(#294046)

Matt Damon 5'-10" 160 lbs played the role of South African rugby captain Francois Pienaar who clocked in at 6'-3" & 240 lbs.

 

Didn't really work for the on-field segments of the movie, which looked lame. Should have stuck with archive footage of the actual games.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

It's not a kill list, it's a disposition matrix!

(#294026)
Bird Dog's picture

So there! No wonder the Incredibly Life-like Talking Point Dembot didn't understand the question.

Greenwald has more on The Matrix.

So what do I think? I'm glad I asked. I have misgivings because this basically involves drone strikes, and I have misgivings about the efficacy of drone strikes. A remote-controlled bombing will kill the terrorist but the populace in that host nation does not warm to the U.S. after the dust clears.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Comcerns about drone strikes

(#294044)
HankP's picture

but not about 10K or more boots on the ground. You can't make this stuff up.

I blame it all on the Internet

We agree

(#294049)
Bird Dog's picture

That is exactly how you feel.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

Touche

(#294048)
brutusettu's picture

----and that reminds me that 2 US sailors have been arrested on the charges that they raped a Japanese woman near the US naval base in Okinawa.

 

 

I saw the same drone story linked at LGM

 

 

 

 

"Jazz, the music of unemployment."

 

Frank Zappa

Eat the Rich Update: B of A lawsuits handed down today.

(#294025)

NEW YORK — The top federal prosecutor in Manhattan sued Bank of America for more than $1 billion on Wednesday for mortgage fraud against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the years around the financial crisis.

 

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Countrywide Financial, which was later bought by Bank of America, churned out mortgage loans from 2007 to 2009 without making sure that borrowers could afford them.

Countrywide put in place a policy called - get this - "The Hustle," short for High Speed Swim Lane, a program which traded quantity for quality, eliminated underwriting, and removed nearly all safeguards (i.e. income verification) from loan processor checklists.

 

And then comes the fraud part.

The lawsuit said that Countrywide executives were aware of the dangerous path they were treading. For example, a quality review in January 2008 showed that 57 percent of Hustle loans went into default.

 

Instead of notifying Fannie and Freddie, Countrywide instead set about to conceal the quality of the loans it was selling them, the suit said. It said Countrywide even offered a bonus to quality-control workers who could “rebut” the default rates that the review had found.

 

The lawsuit didn’t give specifics, but it accused Countrywide, and later Bank of America, of selling “thousands” of Hustle loans to Fannie and Freddie. Bank of America bought Countrywide in July 2008.

A billion dollars is a lot of heads on a pole. Not enough, but it'd be a start.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

I have to disagree.

(#294087)

A billion dollars is not 1 single head on a pole. The poeple who committed the frauds still hve all their salaries and bonuses from that work. Until people, real people not corporations, are held responsible for their personal malfeasance, nothing will change.

 

I see a parallel with the torture thing. Until you hold people responsible for what they did, rather than allowing them to shelter behind a sort of criminal equivalent of limitied corporate liability knowt  will change.

I doubt the US gov't and the states even have

(#294090)

the financial resources or legal firepower to take on all of those powerful individuals & companies, and win. This could in theory be a test case; if successful, more cases would likely follow. You've got to start somewhere. The real problem is, this beginning is awfully late in coming... anyone happen to know when the statute of limitations runs out on financial fraud?

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Fascinating

(#294028)

My loan, from about that period, was with Countrywide, but since it was a Jumbo, it wasn't sold to the government. So BofA is stuck with it. And until the market improves (or I win the Lotto), I'm stuck with BofA.

 

Anyhow. The fascinating bit is that I recall the government encouraging BofA to buy Countrywide in order to shore up the mortgage finance market.

 

Am I misremembering?

Might be true, but the lawsuit alleges that B of A continued

(#294030)

selling Hustle* loans to the Macs even after the Countrywide fire sale.

 

*Seriously? They seriously called them that? It's the kind of small detail that you look at, five, six years after the fact and you just know the smart alecks who came up with the program went out for drinks that night, raised their glasses and said: "This is going to get us thrown in jail one day."

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

After Googling a Bit

(#294035)

Apparently I've misremembered. The only encouragement would have been via a relaxed approval process at the Fed and whichever agency(ies) look after mortgage finance.

 

How much has Countrywide cost BofA so far in fines and settlements? ~$25B and counting.

 

Zowie.

 

I don't know much at all about the tax implications of all these Countrywide losses post-sale, but Countrywide's "organic" losses were estimated to be worth $270M in deductions per year to BofA back in 2008. Every little bit helps.

 

 

[EDIT]: Actually, I wasn't Googling. I'm DuckDuckGo-ing it these days. Too much blog and news chatter cluttering up Google's results. 

Bank of America Stock Unmoved Today...Just Sayin`.

(#294032)

Traveller

It is a little bit like suing God at this point.

(#294033)

It'll be interesting to see where the case goes. I imagine depositions will do more damage to the bank than any verdict...as they should. This is a story that needs to get out there.

"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes

Catchy did you say something about a bounce?

(#294023)

 

 

Sure looks like one. Of course the national vote isn't the important thing at this point. Guess we'll have to wait until some more state level polls are available.

 

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12

WAMI in Mali

(#294022)
Bird Dog's picture

Nigeria, too.

 

 

Those peace-loving French are sending in the drones. In related news, the Malian Islamist nutjobs are banning music. I didn't know that Tinariwen was from Mali. Very cool music.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009