The Politics Thread

[Roman]

Well you also have no problem saying "All liberals" so why can't someone say all conservatives? i'm still waiting for you to tell me what Romney will replace the AHCA with.

It wasn't based on firing people? Ask those who lost their jobs if they feel the same why.

[Max]

Jane, thanks so much for your very thoughtful response. Romney actually does have a 59-point economic plan, and this Washington Post article mentions several of the details:

http://www.washingto...Wl6J_story.html

Unfortunately, he rarely mentions this plan, and for that he is to blame. (And it's part of what makes him such a piss-poor nominee.) I do agree that presenting oneself as the anti-Obama is not enough to win the election.

The constant references to Ronald Reagan make little sense to me, either. (Although Romney mentions him a lot less than the Santorum wing of the party.) Swing voters don't care all that much about the politics of somebody who was president 30 years ago. I just think the modern conservative movement wants to associate themselves with somebody who remains personally popular, in much the same way liberals did with JFK for decades after his death.

Furthermore, I concur that the lack of experience helped Obama politically in 2008 (for the reasons you mentioned). It's a huge paradox, but the more experience a presidential candidate has the less electable he becomes. (This certainly explains why long-time senators always fail in their presidential bids.)

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[Ann_SS]

You are right, but here is my final response:

No one ever referred to George Bush I or II as "Georgie" or Mitt Romney as "Mittie." It is not a coincidence that you call the President, "Barry" and Charles Rangel, "Charlie." You and your ilk do it because it is killing you that you can no longer call them "boy" or worse.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ann_SS

[Max]

"Barry" was the name Obama himself wanted to be called during this childhood and adolescence. (I've never once read that he preferred to be called "Boy.") And the majority of the time I see people in the media referring to Rangel as "Charlie" instead of "Charles."

President Clinton's opponents sometimes called him "Willie." Were they also doing that out of racism?

People who dislike politicians may call them by names they currently don't like (e.g., "Willard"). To suggest that it's done because of racism is absolute paranoia.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

I want to comment on the names without quoting anyone.

Willard is Mitt Romney's real name is it not? I can understand why he would go with Mitt instead of Willard because it sounds like the name of a pet. But then Mitt sounds like gloves but it works in a Biff kind of way and is preferable, imo, to Willard but he could definitely make Willard work for him.

Barry, on the other hand, is not Barack Obama's real name. It's one of those things you let people call you before you stand up and take pride in your real name....like when people call Susan Susie and then one day Susan feels grown up and starts telling people to stop calling her Susie because she's not a little girl anymore.

Unless a person is in Barack Obama's inner-circle or he's said that he prefers to be called Barry then I think it's disrespectful to call him Barry. I know people called George W. Bush, W.. I prefer to call Presidents by their first and last names or their last names, but I avoid first names only.

Whenever I read or hear Barack Obama referred to as Barry, it indicates a special level of disdain.

Mitt Romney's not the President so calling him Willard cannot even compare to Barry, but Barack would be a more applicable comparison.

[Max]

Wales, I've never pretended that I don't have disdain for this man. What I take issue with is the suggestion (made by Roman and Ann) that I despise the man because of the color of his skin. In fact, his policies aren't even the main reason why I despise him. Instead, it's because he masquerades as somebody who is honorable and doesn't play politics, all the while living the high life amongst the elite.

[Wales2004]

I know you've never pretended to like him. I'm no fan of his. I cannot even think of a politician off the top of my head that I actually find decent but I guess I'm jaded right now.

What I try not to do though, is hate because it won't get me where I want to go.

The politician who turns my stomach the most right now is the mayor of Los Angeles. Antonio Villaraigosa. He's all kinds of disgusting but he's not worthy of any of my emotions.

[Max]

Wales, thank you so much for your kind response. I'm certainly culpable of adding to the political vitriol, and I should be inspired by you take the high road.

I don't know all that much about Villaraigosa, but he has always come across as a phony to me. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was elected Governor of California in 2018.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

Considering that the special California voters brought back Jerry Brown, I cannot rule out AV but maybe Gavin Newsome wants to be next. He seems to be popping up on cable TV more and he's got a new show on Current.

Antonio Villaraigosa first put me off when he manipulated the misguided students who ditched school to protest immigration laws and adversely affected downtown traffic. I should probably be more compassionate about traffic and I am working on that. Anyway, immigration is a federal issue so they should have been marching in front of the INS building which is blocks away from City Hall. He saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and invited some of them into City Hall for the cameras, knowing full well that he has nothing at all to do with immigration laws.

I also do not like how his last name is a combination of his name Villa and his ex-wife's name Raigosa. That must sting her family a lot since he cheated on her and public adultery adds a layer of embarassment to an affair.

[Roman]

It just doesn't matter anymore.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Roman

[Roman]

Well that's what happens. Once called out,, those same people then get indignant because you may have struck a nerve and told some truth. I know in my lifetime that if someone works so hard to tell you they're not racist, I have always thought "Well maybe you are." Kinda like that "Well, some of my best friends are black/gay/women/Latino." And then...

I just let them stay exactly the way they are. tomorrow celebrates those who actually got past whatever bigotry they have and made this land a better place for millions of people. So, I'll just eat some BBQ and drink some Bud Light (LOVE that and Stag beer) and just know that i'm trying my best to stay on the right and positive side of history.

[Wales2004]

If we're absolutely honest then aren't we all a little racist or racialist in some way? Once the concept of race is introduced to us, it's hard to say that it does not shape our opiinions of each other in some fashion.

Look how easily we lump people into categories as if they are all the same people simply because they have race or nationality in common. Latinos are people of various races and various nationalities. In politics they are referred to as one monoloithic group despite the fact they are not. Cuba, Mexico, and the Dominican, for example, do not have the same traditions and food associated with them but they're discussed as one united group of people despite the differences.

Asians are lumped together as if Japan and China are the exact same country.

People easily disregard the fact that a black man from Ethiopia is not the same person as a black man from America.

Race discussions are very rarely logical. They tend to be emotional and people generally enter into those discussions with preconceived notions and in a defensive mode.

People tend to react to what they think someone else is thinking (whether they've read the person right or not) and the other person in turn reacts defensively. Once you've set up the antagonism, there is no middle ground.

When a person is accused of racism, if he doesn't defend himself then aha, that proves he is a racist. But if he defends himself or does it too much, then that proves he's a racist as well. Once you're labeled a racist then you might as well throw your hands up and let the label stick because there's no way around it.

Race isn't complicated. People complicae it by trying to intellectualize an idiotic exclusionary classification.

Once upon a time, the southern segregation laws put every black person who traveled to the south in the same boat in America. Thoughts cannot be legislated. Outside of race, black Americans don't all have any singular bond of which I am aware. Everyone isn't poor, undeducated and living in the ghetto. Everyone isn't running from the police and on crack. Everyone isn't aspiring to be in the NBA or a rapper. Pseudo-black leaders contribute just as much to perpetuating this false image of the entire black American population as white radical conservatives do. Two races of men on the opposite side of the fence achieving the same goal. When Bill Cosby stood up to try to encourage those who fit the shoes, so to speak, to use correct grammar and get educated, he was attacked by the pseudo-intellectuals who were more concerned about public image than addressing any real issues. Now they can make a career out of appearing on shows as analysts so the problems need never go away.

My ranting means nothing to anyone but me. I would ask that when a person comes into what appears to be a loaded topic, that he/she considers what baggage he/she is bringing into that discussion.

We should all try to be honest about our parts in inflaiming certain topics and that includes us dragging our baggage into other threads. And my intention is not to pick on anyone so please don't read anything other than my very simple statement.

In the interest of full disclosure, there is one topic which gets me bent and that is when a GH soap character to which I have no particular affinity gets labeled in what I see as a derragotary manner. I contend that she's a victim of poor writing and blind hate. Other than that, I am all about harmony.

[DRW50]

The right wing's newest hate figure:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78068.html

Tucker Carlson's site ran a whole article basically just to say that some anonymous conservative thinks he's a douche and always was. Funny how that didn't stop them from giving him money and a speaking slot in 2009...

[DRW50]

More blatant flip-flopping from Romney. Not that anyone ever notices or cares.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/romney-shifts-says-mandates-a-tax-128026.html

[Max]

Nobody could have said this better. In fact, your whole post is absolutely brilliant.

Your posts (which most definitely are not rants) mean a great deal to me as well. Even when I disagree with you, I am always interested in what you have to say.