Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Post-Election Observations (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Post-Election Observations
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a few things that occurred to me this morning, feel free to chime in on anything...

Nate Silver was more right than I would have thought possible. I was amazed watching the map materialize beside a window of his prediction map. I went to bed at 11:30, thinking "well, he only really missed Virginia," only to wake up and see that it went blue after all. I understand the political reasons why people were accusing him of bias, but his vindication is pretty darned impressive even so.

In Maine, we enacted marriage equality through a referendum. First in the nation for that milestone, and I'm very proud of my state this morning.

We also sent an Independent to the Senate, and while escaping the two-party chokehold is a bit of a pipe dream, I was glad to be a small part of bucking the system.

Colorado and Washington legalized recreational pot??! I didn't even know that was on the ballot. Could we be close to finally getting rid of the stupid, costly and destructive prohibition on marijuana?

Obama... I don't want to say he got lucky, because he was a better candidate than Romney, but *whoever* won this election was going to go down as an economic policy success. Financial crises have a relatively predictable lifespan (which is longer than 4 years, but less than 8), and most economists are expecting the upward trend in jobs and general economic health to continue until we are back to historical norms. This would likely happen with a block of firewood in the oval office, but Obama's legacy is going to end up being that of steady recovery from the Great Recession. Kind of interesting, considering that, had he lost this (relatively close) election, he would probably be remembered as an economic failure (note that I think *neither* assessment is accurate; Americans give an irrationally large amount of credit for economic health to the president for some reason).

The federal balance of power is basically unchanged, but I think we might see the partisan edge recede a bit. The goal of unseating Obama, which drove a lot of the GOP refusal to negotiate, is now kind of moot, and there seems little political gain in making him look bad now that he's done running for office. Now when the president and the house face off on the fiscal cliff (for example), the house members all have re-elections to face, and he does not. This will neutralize the much greater party discipline that the GOP has, and the effect, IMO, will be more deals and cooperation (not a ton more, but a little).

There is already talk that the GOP is looking to shift its stance on immigration. Demographic trends are no secret, and almost certainly the case now that no party can win the White House without at least a moderate position on immigration. I would not be surprised to see bipartisan immigration reform in the next 2 years.

First openly gay female senator is a good sign.

In Texas, there was a state senator, Mario Gallegos, who won re-election despite the fact that he is has been *dead* for two weeks. Yes, dead. Google it, its the weirdest thing I've seen so far this election season.

More later. [Smile]

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with most of your assessment but with two caveats:

The "predictable lifespan" of a financial crisis is inapplicable if the situation is unprecedented - and I feel it is. Slow economic growth is here to stay, I believe, because of the changed nature of the job market and the fact that game-changing technological innovations big enough to drive a new industry are exhausted. You may think I'm being a pessimist, but as an engineer I see fundamental physical limits and a critical mass of researchers resulting in us having turned over all the rocks in the field and eating all the low-hanging fruit. Whomever the president, this economy remains a hot potato, and we're going to hear much the same arguments made 4 years from now as we just did.

Secondly, there may be less political gain to be had from making Obama look bad, but that won't discourage those members of Congress who have put ideology over pragmatism from keeping it up.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps not, but this election was supposed to be the culmination of the conservative takeover. It didn't happen, and even as bright a conservative light as Brit Hume of FOX said last night something close to: "I guess the country is more liberal than I thought."

Obama didn't win a mandate, but the economy is swinging back and the GOP failed to label him a one-term failed Jimmy Carter reincarnation. The Senate became more Democratic and the House less Republican.

It bodes well for better cooperation moving forward.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:

Secondly, there may be less political gain to be had from making Obama look bad, but that won't discourage those members of Congress who have put ideology over pragmatism from keeping it up.

This may be true in some cases, but Congress has a rapid turnover (the House, not the senate, but that's where the obstructionism is coming from). Congressmen who aren't pragmatic about their electoral prospects, at least, get replaced relatively quickly.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The economy is going to continue to get worse, and the fact you pointed out about most recessions having a limited lifespan is going to be something he'd like to forget. Of course, he'll blame everyone but himself.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First off, Republicans shouldn't get too down. After going through Bush's 2004 re-election, pretty much every Democrat knows exactly what they're going through. Conservatives will be back on top someday, probably not too far from now.

It's becoming clear that the Reagan coalition - movement conservatives, evangelical Christians, and blue collar whites, especially men - probably isn't strong enough to win presidential elections without a solid wind at their back anymore. They have to add a deomographic to the coalition without wrecking the current coalition. It will be a tough nut to crack.

The election gives Obama a good negotiating position, but I don't expect Congressional Republicans to raise the debt ceiling without unreasonable concessions, and I don't expect them to compromise on tax increases for the rich. We'll probably default on our debt and walk off the fiscal cliff. It will have severe, long-lasting effects on the economy, but these issues probably can't be resolved without a crisis.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The President advocates a balanced approach, i.e. mostly spending cuts, and some tax increase.

Republicans controlling the House have pledged no tax increase under any circumstance.

Facts indicate that cutting taxes on the wealthy does not increase growth. (Facts the Republicans have suppressed)

It will be clear who the obstructionists are, and I hope the public is informed enough to make it clear that obstructionists will not be reelected.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to say Republicans are finally going to have to come to terms with who Obama is and not who they've been saying he is for the past 4 years. That didn't happen with the Democrats and Bush.

I believed that Romney looked like the Republican John Kerry since the early primaries. I think he pretty much turned out to be that.

Hopefully the GOP will finally notice that there was a Republican candidate with a young and enthusiastic following this year and that they may need to try and understand why a man in his 80s who gave most of his speeches in a tone of exhasperation was drawing that support. (Oh how I wish we could have seen a Ron Paul vs Obama debate.)

The days of the Republican Party as a big tent may be coming to a close and the future may be more of a campground of many little tents.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I would like to say Republicans are finally going to have to come to terms with who Obama is and not who they've been saying he is for the past 4 years."

Not necessarily. I remember saying to friends that if Bush won in 2000 while the votes were being chadded and butterflied that I might move to Canada. But when Bush was finally declared the winner I realized that I had, er, some obligations that would keep me here.

Where would Republicans go? Can't be Canada or Mexico for obvious reasons. Perhaps they could pile into Texas where there's still plenty of room and work for secession...

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Puerto Rico had their first majority in favor of statehood this election.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Economy will trend better unless Europe tanks.

The interesting question is whether Obama can get about 20 Republican members of the House to break away from rigid party discipline to support certain legislation. I suspect that he can on raising taxes on the wealthy as part of a balanced package that also includes entitlement cuts. Of not, we'll remain with a more anemic growth path

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, did anyone read OSC's delirious ranting on the front page today? I've heard some overheated rhetoric, but comparing the entirety of the non-Fox News media to Nazis and Bolsheviks is new.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. I have met him twice and he sounded reasonable in person. But these comments seemed untethered.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Economy will trend better unless Europe tanks.

The interesting question is whether Obama can get about 20 Republican members of the House to break away from rigid party discipline to support certain legislation. I suspect that he can on raising taxes on the wealthy as part of a balanced package that also includes entitlement cuts. Of not, we'll remain with a more anemic growth path

One will have to be Boehner, so that such measures can get on the agenda at all. If he's willing to stop playing the majority-of-the-majority game and let measures that might get cross party approval actually come up for consideration, there's a decent chance of working something out. (Though he might have to put a cone of silence over Cantor to pull that off). If he continues the practice from last year of ensuring that most of the time only measures that will get enough votes to pass by Republican votes alone get serious consideration on the floor, we're going to see the same stalemate all over again.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Wow, did anyone read OSC's delirious ranting on the front page today? I've heard some overheated rhetoric, but comparing the entirety of the non-Fox News media to Nazis and Bolsheviks is new.

I wonder is there'd be a matter/anti-matter explosion if he and David Brin ever tried to shake hands. They're both generally conservative sci-fi writers, but I swear that if you read that backwards, you'd end up with one of Dr. Brin's blog posts about the GOP/Fox News war on Science and decent into insanity.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
Wow, did anyone read OSC's delirious ranting on the front page today? I've heard some overheated rhetoric, but comparing the entirety of the non-Fox News media to Nazis and Bolsheviks is new.

Shouldn't it occur to OSC that if the media are powerful enough to keep Obama in the presidency all by their lonesome, despite all his horribleness -- then they they would have been powerful enough to install Gore and Kerry in the presidency too, despite *their* horribleness?

And that therefore there must be a reason *besides* media bias for the Obama reelection?

In addition, shouldn't it also occur to him that the news channels that make wrong predictions about reality are the news channels that are more likely to be biased about their reporting of reality altogether?

And that despite the constant harping about Benghazi, there's only so much milking you can make out of 4 deaths, when the ~3000 deaths in the Twin Towers and the 100,000+ deaths of the Iraq War weren't sufficient to prevent Bush's reelection?

As I also mentioned in the hatrack forum this is really an excellent example of "straining out the gnat, and swallowing the camel"

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a pity OSC writes about politics. He goes sraight from Jeckyl to Hyde.

I wonder how he'd react to a liberty/non-interventionist candidate?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC hsa always been a weird fusion of a neo-con and a socialist. He's a straight-up authoritarian. He'd absolutely hate non-interventionists.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I expected the post-election talk would be about the split in Tea Party-like ideology vs Steady-As-You-Go intransigence of the "establishment". Instead, it seems to have little to do with that and is all about demographic and cultural shifts.

Bill O'Reilly sums it up in a single observation that 50% + 1 "want stuff" from government. Rush says that white people are on the run, someone else (forget who) says that "traditional America" no longer exists. That is a catch-phrase for white males who run things and decide how things oughta be.

All of the above is just saying something obvious as if it's just a negative. What it really means is that:

. The population has a big and growing latino identity, and they want respect

. You can't ignore people in the political process just because they're poor

. Governing on the principles of religious fundamentalism doesn't appeal to most of us

. Women feel disrespected by conservatives

. The GOP has to accept that we are an urban and middle-class society

. You don't have to give up core moral principles to live in a changing world with changing social mores.

The last is to me actually the most important. It's a cliche that the rate of change of technology that we are in contact with every day is increasing. The GOP ignores the connection between that kind of change and its impact on society. We have to change to keep up, but even the word "conservative" connotes that they want things to stay the same. It truly isn't your grandfather's country any more, or even your father's. If you don't keep up you'll be left behind.

I think the GOP knows that now. They will have to become more "moderate", which means that the Democrats will probably become even more (by their reckoning) liberal.

The other wonderful thing about this election is that money only mattered up to a point. Rove, the Kochs and other PAC people spent about $800M to get Republicans elected and to win battleground states for Romney. According to an analysis I read (somewhere, can't remember!) all that money was between 1-13% effective, meaning their candidates lost almost every race. That's really good to know.

[ November 08, 2012, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a kernel of truth in that OSC rant. The media does support establishment authority. It is fair to call it propaganda. Obama is deeply dishonest and, in my opinion, only semi-competent.

What is remarkable to me is how selective OSC's critical eye is. He thinks Fox and the Republican party are anti-establishment, and that Romney is decent and honest. And that is beyond hilarious.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is remarkable to me is how selective OSC's critical eye is. He thinks Fox and the Republican party are anti-establishment, and that Romney is decent and honest. And that is beyond hilarious.
The selective eye is why I tend to avoid his World Watch collumns. I wish I could read his product reviews without his strying into politics as well.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama is deeply dishonest
Can you provide an argument that Obama is more dishonest than any of his four predecessors: George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush or Ronald Reagan?

Can you provide an argument that Obama is more dishonest than any of those who led at one point for the Republican nomination: Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, or Newt Gingrich?

And if not, what precisely are you standards for "deeply dishonest"?

[ November 08, 2012, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg

Do you think that was KT's point?

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
There is a kernel of truth in that OSC rant. The media does support establishment authority. It is fair to call it propaganda.

This is true, but not in the way that you seem to be saying it. Neither Obama nor Romney represented the slightest departure from establishment authority, and the aggregate media bias had nothing to do with a preference for one over the other. The establishment bias manifests as a marginalization of candidates and issues that *do* represent an alternative (and threat) to the establishment. That's why you don't hear Fair Trade vs. Free Trade questions at the debates, and why Ron Paul is depicted as fringe relative to candidates like Bachman, Perry and Gingrich, all of whom he actually outperforms at the polls (about even with Gingrich, but look at how differently the media treats them).

quote:
Obama is deeply dishonest and, in my opinion, only semi-competent.

I would call Obama politician-dishonest, meaning that his public remarks are always carefully strategized and heavily spun, but beyond that I don't see anything egregious. He certainly isn't guilty of the unambiguous falsehoods of people like Clinton or Mitt. Do you have specific transgressions in mind?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

Both parties are deeply dishonest.

My point is that even though OSC has selective vision, it doesn't necessarily negate the truth of that small portion of reality he allows himself to see and express clearly. His complaint is petty, but it touches upon some painful truths, even if his treatment of Romney is delusional by comparison.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

quote:
Neither Obama nor Romney represented the slightest departure from establishment authority, and the aggregate media bias had nothing to do with a preference for one over the other. The establishment bias manifests as a marginalization of candidates and issues that *do* represent an alternative (and threat) to the establishment. That's why you don't hear Fair Trade vs. Free Trade questions at the debates, and why Ron Paul is depicted as fringe relative to candidates like Bachman, Perry and Gingrich, all of whom he actually outperforms at the polls (about even with Gingrich, but look at how differently the media treats them).
Yes.

quote:
I would call Obama politician-dishonest, meaning that his public remarks are always carefully strategized and heavily spun, but beyond that I don't see anything egregious. He certainly isn't guilty of the unambiguous falsehoods of people like Clinton or Mitt. Do you have specific transgressions in mind?
I no longer make the kind of distinction you're making, if I understand you correctly. I don't think that distinction matters much. More importantly, we perpetuate the evils of the system by placing such importance on such a small distinction. If anything, the "unambiguous falsehoods" are the least dangerous. It's the ambiguous ones that do real damage.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would help me understand what you mean by "Deeply dishonest," in the context where you aren't talking about demonstrable lies, if you can give an example or two.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The people that create jobs, and generate economic growth, are not quite as cavalier about equating Obama, and Romney.

The Dow dropped 486 points in 2008, and 313 points Wednesday... the largest in one year. It is notable that the second decline is based upon the "devil that they know". The EU just released economic data indicating that things are worse than expected. We will not be selling them more, but less in the forseeable future, and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will only compound matters.

Time to reach a budget agreement before sequestration kicks in is expired. If Barry expects the House to cave on tax increases he is recklessly gambling. His insistence during the debates that national security will not be compromised, in this showdown, is a promise that he has no power to deliver on. But for the fact that Obama is reponsible for conceiving the sequestration plan, that now includes defense cuts beyond even Panetta's minimum, he might have an excuse.

Look for political divisions to be at an all-time high over the next four years... enjoy.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KidTokyo,

You made a very inflammatory, very definitive, very provable comment.

Then you declined to elaborate or back it up in any meaningful way. With all due respect, I find that very frustrating.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
I no longer make the kind of distinction you're making, if I understand you correctly. I don't think that distinction matters much. More importantly, we perpetuate the evils of the system by placing such importance on such a small distinction. If anything, the "unambiguous falsehoods" are the least dangerous. It's the ambiguous ones that do real damage.

Well, you can't really escape the distinction, because "spin" is something everyone does, and not really separable from human psychology. Its just presenting one's view in the best possible light. There is a great deal of self-deception involved, I think, but its not what we ordinarily refer to as a lie. In any case, I think its counter-productive to gloss over the differences between bias and deception, because they have very different real-world results. Remember when large percentages of the population believed that Sadaam Hussein was responsible in part for the 9-11 attacks? That's not a consequence of spin, exaggeration or bias, but rather of deliberate and calculated deception. And its a much more serious problem.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gamblers on the stock market neither create jobs nor generate economic growth.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kid Tokyo

I think most people consider deeply dishonest as someone who lies a lot. I could see it having other meanings, such as someone who presents himself as something he's not or allows others to do so. What I don't know is what you mean.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gamblers on the stock market neither create jobs nor generate economic growth.
The idealist in me wants to agree with this. The realist is standing behind him shaking his head and rolling his eyes.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC did remind me of something. If one looks at the GOP field most of them were either relative unknowns (Johnson, Huntsman) novelty acts (Johnson, Cain, and I hate to say it but Paul) or had so much baggages (Gingrich, Bachman, Perry, Santorum) that they weren't plausible. That made Romney the most realistic candidate from the start. Still was he really the only Republican in America qualified to run, or were the others looking at the facts on the gound and deciding to sit it out.

I am reminded of that because if you really think the media is already in the tank for the incumbent you might think it wise not to bother. Now if you really want to be president, that means you're also gambling on Obama winning reelection.

I wonder how many of them a couple years ago were publicly talking about a one-term president and privately presuming he'd be in for two terms.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Nasdaq has had something like ~15 drops in the last year similar to yesterday's but it's still up quite a bit from a year ago and nearly double where it was when Obama won in 2008. There was also other financial news yesterday than the election.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My time today is limited to smaller windows, so I will gladly concede that my definition of "deeply dishonest" is not aligned with convention usage, if that prevents us from getting railroaded into a microscopic, word-parsing discussion that is absolutely irrelevant.

I thought I was saying something against Romney, Fox, and OSC, but it seems the Obama defense committee is still the most hurt. I don't even recall saying that Obama lied like Romney did. I will again happily concede that Romney was guilty of asserting more factual falsehoods than Obama during the campaign, though I haven't been tracking it by scoreboard.

Again, none of this is very high on my list of important things. If our media did it's job, 90% of what Romney said and, let's say 80% of what Obama said would have been much more heavily scrutinized, debunked, and challenged.

I think Obama is dishonest because our system is dishonest. He's not especially worthy of being singled out for it. That was my point all along. I didn't realize it would be so controversial. I think I phrased it in a way, in retrospect, that highlighted the disconnect between emotional message and factual message.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK,

Kid had an uncluttered chance to call attention to Barry's "deep dishonesty", and ended in a whimper.

Let me give it a shot. I will make the point with something recent, and highly relevant to political discourse in the coming weeks.

Barry made this statement during the debates:

"First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed, its something that Congress proposed... "...

Bob Woodward relates this statement of the White House role:

"At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his Chief of Staff, David Krone. 'We have an idea for the trigger' Lew said. 'What is the idea?' Reid asked skeptically. "Sequestration"...

Question: Is Barry's story a "political lie", or just a run-of-the-mill lie?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Page 326, "The Price of Politics"

Bob Woodward pub. September 2012

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kid had an uncluttered chance to call attention to Barry's "deep dishonesty", and ended in a whimper.
Sometimes we say things in a rush. This idea that it is somehow weak or dishonorable to clarify, amend, or even back away from a statement that created something other than the intended impression or which was ill considered is why debating on Ornery often sucks more than it needs to.

Incidentally, I still stand by the term "semi-competent."

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Lew and Nabors suggested this on behalf of the administration, and the president directed or learned about this prior to congress “proposing” it, then he lied during the debate.

Not taking credit or blame for your actions is dishonest. Taking credit or blame for the actions of others is dishonest.

An interesting question noel. I’m curious if some people can agree on the facts yet interpret whether or not a lie occurred. If only we had a similar situation to look back on…

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1