Dodd/Kucinich 08': Election Blu-Galoo

[RavingLunatic]

If you don't think that a guy's money and career is a large factor in his ability to attract really superficial women (just like a woman's attractiveness is a large factor in her ability to attract really superficial guys) I don't know what else to tell you.

The question just remains why you'd want to attract people like that. Or, if you believe that this is indeed the single most important factor in each and every individual's choice of partner, why you'd want to be in a relationship at all.

I don't see it as a superficial thing at all. I'm attracted to girls who look a certain way, and there's nothing I can do about it (though there are obviously many other factors that go into attraction as well). I don't think it makes me superficial, and if it does I don't see how I could possibly have any control over my bring superficial or not, just like I don't see how I have any control over whether I like the taste of green beans or not (I don't). Similarly, I don't see women who desire security in the form of wealth as being superficial. It's just one of the factors that make them attracted to people, and probably not something they have much control over.

[Andrew_TSKS]

first of all, taft-hartley. i agree with some of the provisions of taft-hartley (the abolishing of closed shops, for example) and disagree with others (the fact that it paved the way for virginia and others to become "right to work" states, a bit of orwellian doublespeak if i ever saw one, is appalling to me). my point is more that it's a 60-year old act that changed the law on a lot of different issues, and what we should not be doing right now is trying to go back and repeal it. what we should instead be doing is reintroducing the more important issues dealt with in the taft-hartley act into the national dialogue and considering them on a case-by-case basis. i think the way is starting to be paved for unions to be seen positively by the american general public again, which is the first time since reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers at the dawn of the 1980s that you've seen that viewpoint take any widespread hold. but the fact remains that a lot of people out there still see unions as intrinsically corrupt and evil, a picture that was built up over decades of organized crime abuses of union power. it's going to take a lot of work to change that picture, and a good bit of that work should probably go towards reforming some of the older, more entrenched unions. i mean, we all know that the afl-cio is useless and the teamsters still have mob ties, so it's really hard for me to see a completely uncritical embracement of unions as something that we should do right now. plus, a vast majority of the country would be against it--which is a shame, and hopefully that could be changed over time. but repealing the taft-hartley act seems neither a wise nor a workable idea at this stage of the game.

as far as nader's 12 issues, here are my thoughts on them:

Adopt single payer national health insurance: ok, this is a good idea in theory and i'd like to see it happen, but i feel like it's not going to just happen tomorrow. the debate obama and clinton are having about health care is a good one if you ask me, and it may lead to reformation of the health care industry in america to a point i could live with. but honestly, i doubt it. i don't like that corporate interests are still so heavily tied into the whole thing, and honestly, i think anyone who's trying to reform health care will eventually have to do a great deal to change those corporate interests and investments into our national health care. my hope is that eventually we'll work towards the sort of single-payer insurance nader is talking about. but i don't think he could get it to happen anytime in the next 8 years. this is an issue that we'll need to take more slowly as a country, for a lot of the same reasons i cited above in my discussion of taft-hartley.
  
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.
  
No to nuclear power, solar energy first: hmm. i'm of two minds about this issue, for a variety of reasons, but you can't deny that both obama and clinton are talking about creating jobs in the green energy industries, which includes not only solar but wind and biodiesel and a bunch of other stuff.
  
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare: this is both vague and sweeping. i'm not sure what the nuts and bolts of this would look like. i'm hoping some of the changes in the tax code that the democrats want will make it harder for corporations to get away without paying what i consider to be a fair tax rate, but that remains to be seen. corporate crimes--well, a lot of the corporate crimes that were gotten away with over the last 8 years were because bush was in office and he was pulling strings for people like ken lay. i doubt we'd see that happen under a democratic administration. but again, this is kind of vague and it's hard to know how this would really even be applied in practical terms.
  
Open up the Presidential debates: good idea in theory, but it's about 90th on my list of priorities right now. not irrelevant, but damn close to it.
  
Adopt a carbon pollution tax: obama has talked about this, though maybe not in the same terms nader has. still, though.
  
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East: depends on what you mean, but obama definitely wants to bring people home from iraq and talk to iran instead of just bombing them. he also wants to go after osama bin laden instead of letting him live like a king in the mountains of pakistan. if that's not a reversal, i don't know what is. also, i agree with all of it.
  
Impeach Bush/Cheney: this is even closer to irrelevant to me than the debates point. probably do-able, but i can't bring myself to give a shit at this point. wouldn't complain if it happened, won't complain if it doesn't.
  
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law: see above
  
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax: ok, this one kind of throws me because i don't know what that even means. it sounds a bit esoteric to make an essential point of one's campaign. i'd have to hear more about it before i could have more of an opinion than that, though.
  
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism: i agree, but you know there's work being done on the legal front where this is concerned right now, right? it's not like anyone in the democratic party is ignoring this issue after the systematic disenfranchisement of their voters in 2000 and 2004. i don't know if we'll see change on this anytime soon, but there is work being done in congress on electronic voting, and that may have an effect by 2010 if not this year. it's certainly not an issue that obama and clinton are ignoring, although since a lot of the public doesn't seem to concerned with it, it's not occupying much public space right now. still though.
  
Work to end corporate personhood: wow, i don't know about this. that seems like a drastic solution to the problems involved with corporate abuse. i don't think you could get the backing of the majority or even a significant minority of american people on this one.

[Andrew_TSKS]

Similarly, I don't see women who desire security in the form of wealth as being superficial.

why can't they go earn that money themselves, ryan? i mean, do you question whether the women you consider dating are earning enough money to take care of you?

[hannah]

RL has elsewhere stated skepticism about deaths from back-alley abortions. So.

Wait, I don't remember this. I do remember expressing skepticism about an international study that GI linked to that was conducted by a reproductive-rights organization and which involved much subjective analysis.

Sorry. I was misremembering this remark:

I've always heard the argument that if you outlaw [abortion] it would just go underground, but I never really knew how accurate that claim was.

Which, whatever. But I certainly apologize for incorrectly characterizing your stance on these things.

Anyhow, re: the strawman claim... I don't exactly apologize for making a sarcastic remark about your view of women. In other words, I'll be chipping in with Jeb on your 2008 Christmas present.

[alex]

I don't see it as a superficial thing at all. I'm attracted to girls who look a certain way, and there's nothing I can do about it (though there are obviously many other factors that go into attraction as well). I don't think it makes me superficial, and if it does I don't see how I could possibly have any control over my bring superficial or not, just like I don't see how I have any control over whether I like the taste of green beans or not (I don't). Similarly, I don't see women who desire security in the form of wealth as being superficial. It's just one of the factors that make them attracted to people, and probably not something they have much control over.

Oh, I murked this out at a point where you had already posted a reply which I didn't notice, sorry. My short reply would be that it does and you do, and it does and they do. Or alternatively: I'll be chipping in on that present, too.

[edison]

Let the record show that posting controversial opinions on women on LPTJ will get you TONS of Christmas presents, people

[edison]

(I do think it'd be a useful present)

[coldforge]

Can I just say for a point of clarification here, while we are obviously proceeding further and further afield in re: the presidential election, that the feminist issue is not with woman desiring a successful man; it's with a man assuming, presuming, and proceeding to act as though women as a class themselves desire successful men, and in general or as a rule are going to rely on them for their security.

[Greg Nog]

I'm attracted to girls who look a certain way, and there's nothing I can do about it (though there are obviously many other factors that go into attraction as well). I don't think it makes me superficial, and if it does I don't see how I could possibly have any control over my bring superficial or not, just like I don't see how I have any control over whether I like the taste of green beans or not (I don't).

I don't mean to get all up in the pile-on, here, but your inability to see how humans can change the way they interact with the world is the thing that frustrates me the most about a lot of your posts.

[C of heartbreak]

I can't believe these threads are going to keep going until November.

[Andrew_TSKS]

maybe even longer than that.

[elpollodiablo]

Haha 'Super Tuesday II'

Thx, Fox News

[dieblucasdie]

ugh I'm glad I missed that.

[FreddyKnuckles]

when will hc learn that the extremely negative abrasive route doesn't work for her.  people want to see her acting like a normal person, not overcompensating.  obama just comes out of it looking noble.

[DCDave]

I love how she leaked the picture of him dressed as a Somali and then was like "How dare you import that we did that to scandalize!  Hilary has dressed like that before and is not ashamed of it!  Don't you respect other cultures, Barack Obama?  You have no respect for foreign customs"

Ultimate Bullshit.

From MSNBC:

"Enough," Williams said in a statement. "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry."

Hey devil-chicken, this is why Hilary gets called names, because she fucking deserves it.

[Andrew_TSKS]

when will hc learn that the extremely negative abrasive route doesn't work for her.  people want to see her acting like a normal person, not overcompensating.  obama just comes out of it looking noble.

this is really true. her most popular moments in the campaign have been when she softened up and showed some emotion, and i mean bill maher can bitch about her winning new hampshire because she cried (for the record, i don't think that's why that happened) but the fact is that this is what people want to see from her, because most of the time they feel like she's humorless and cold. that's also how she's been portrayed in the media since the days of bill's administration, and softening up publicly was the best way to counter that. however, she's got some campaign staffers that seem like real go-for-the-throat types (mark penn, mainly) and i think they've ultimately controlled the direction of her campaign, which is why we've seen so little of that. i think it's really hurt her.

[elpollodiablo]

Hey man I'm through defending her campaign. It's hard to at this point. But I think early on she was treated with some major disrespect by the media, and that in confluence with the Big O's amazing campaign skillz has backed her into a corner. She looks like shit right now; she's acting incredibly shrill and petulant right now. What can I say?

I am pretty upset because I skipped seeing Bill speak downtown today to go to a class that was CANCELED, though.

[Thermofusion]

I was just reading about that, Dave.  Granted -- the original report that Clinton's staffers had circulated the photo came from Drudge (who's about as trustworthy as a loanshark with a meth habit), so I'm not going to jump to any conclusions just yet...

But, given the incredibly below-the-belt guerilla smear tactics the Clinton campaign used in NH and Nevada, it absolutely seems like something they'd do. 

[Andrew_TSKS]

also, the defense reminds me of that clinton-affiliated guy saying obama was "doing something in the neighborhood--i'm not gonna say what but it says so in his book", obviously referencing his teenage drug years, and then when he got called out about it, tried to say that he was referencing obama's community organizing days, which wouldn't have made sense in the original context anyway.

[Thermofusion]

also, the defense reminds me of that clinton-affiliated guy saying obama was "doing something in the neighborhood--i'm not gonna say what but it says so in his book", obviously referencing his teenage drug years, and then when he got called out about it, tried to say that he was referencing obama's community organizing days, which wouldn't have made sense in the original context anyway.

That was Bob Johnson who said that, and he's one of the dumbest, most arrogant sonsabitches around.  He's the owner of BET and the co-owner of the Charlotte Bobcats (along with Nelly, if you can believe that) and pretty much everyone in Charlotte hates him.

[RavingLunatic]

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.

You really think so?  I mean, both Obama and Hillary want to increase the size of our military by 90,000-100,000 troops, and I haven't heard either of them talk about cuts in military spending and this is the primary season. Seems to me like they're pretty much trying to out-tough each other on this issue, and things'll only get worse come general election time.

[RavingLunatic]

Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax: ok, this one kind of throws me because i don't know what that even means. it sounds a bit esoteric to make an essential point of one's campaign. i'd have to hear more about it before i could have more of an opinion than that, though.

I'm not clear on how this would work on the stock market, but as far as speculation against international currencies go, a very small tax (I think it's called the Tobin Tax) would be sufficient to prevent the highly destructive speculation that goes on in that arena. I imagine something similar could be done to prevent the kind of speculation that leads to the kind of bubbles that continue to devastate out economy.

[DCDave]

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget: you can't think that this one isn't on the table for clinton and obama, both of whom have made bringing the troops in iraq home a big part of their campaign platforms. i realize nader is probably talking about deeper cuts in the budget than obama and clinton are, but again, i don't think that's necessarily realistic at this juncture. i'd like to see a reduction in foreign bases that i see as overcommitment of troops in situations that no longer have any real purpose (after all, the soviet union is gone, and so is east germany). but i'm not ron paul, and i don't think we should shutter every foreign base tomorrow. i don't know where nader is on that issue, but i have my doubts that what he's talking about with this point is the same as obama/clinton want, or that the majority of the country wants. but make no mistake, if a democrat is elected, we'll see a reduction in military spending within a year or two.

You really think so?  I mean, both Obama and Hillary want to increase the size of our military by 90,000-100,000 troops, and I haven't heard either of them talk about cuts in military spending and this is the primary season. Seems to me like they're pretty much trying to out-tough each other on this issue, and things'll only get worse come general election time.

Troops don't cost as much as capital military expenditures do.  Salary for 90,000 troops is cheaper than a dozen F-22s or refitting a few aircraft carriers.   It's also more economically redistributive, and better for the work force as a whole.

[dieblucasdie]

Also I'd rather see more paid military and less Blackwater.

[Antero]

Also I'd rather see more paid military and less Blackwater.

Christ yes.  Cheaper and less creeping-corporate-fascism-y.