Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who will be the next world power?
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 91 of 151 (507743)
05-07-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by kuresu
05-07-2009 4:55 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Sounds pretty conspiratorial to me.
Thanks for your well thought out input.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2009 4:55 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2009 5:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 92 of 151 (507746)
05-07-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by dronestar
05-07-2009 3:26 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Straggler writes:
Is it just "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) that decides these things or is it a complicated ebb and flow interplay between the results of democracy and the competing and disparate interests of exceptionally wealthy institutions?
Dronester writes:
Yes, I concur.
Straggler writes:
Marvellous.
But, unless I am totally misreading them, I am not sure how you could extract this position from Oni's earlier posts. Posts which you felt compelled to agree wholeheartedly with.
Dronester writes:
Please review my message #77. Before your quotes, you have may have skipped over the very important qualifying word "SOMETIMES . . ." Strange how I even uppercased the word for emphasis.
I have reviewed your message 77. I suggest that you do the same. Your "SOMETIMES" was in a previous paragraph that related wholly to media influence and which was not part of the specific chain of responses related above at all.
Here is the quite seperate and prior "SOMETIMES" paragraph:
Dronester in msg 77 writes:
1. The corporate media (Fox "News" and the "liberal" NY Times: check out the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. They show the supposed "liberal" New York Times to be quite conservatively/fascist biased) CAN and DOES often effectively marginalize candidates (Nader, Perot, Kucinich, Dean). (Also, NY Times' self-censoring invisible support for Bush II has been jaw-slacking). But, yes, you are correct, SOMETIMES. . .
Dronester writes:
Perhaps it was just bad writing/paragragh formatting on my part. If so, I apologize.
It was. So I accept your apology.
Dronester writes:
For clarity, I finished the "Yes, I concur" paragraph with a question that used another qualifier, again, uppercased.
Now that is a fair comment. Let's remind ourselves of the question you asked and of the portion of your response which I fully concede that I selectively chose to omit from my quote.
Dronester writes:
Yes, I concur. Where is the conspiracy theory in this? There is only so much propaganda, misinformation, and bias that is successful. Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their ways?
Nobody has claimed that big business ALWAYS gets their way. And nobody has claimed that anybody is claiming that big business ALWAYS gets their way.
Now we are just getting silly.........
As for the conspiracy angle:
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
Oni can clarify whether this is what he actually meant or not - but this is how I read it in the context in which it was written - "Big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to be nominated because "they" wanted to ensure a democratic win.
It seems also to be later suggested that this outcome was arranged by "big business" basically as a global public relations exercise.
If that is what Oni meant then that is conspiratorial.
If not.....well then we will take it from there. But quite possibly I owe Oni an apology for misrepresenting his views. It depends what he says I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2009 3:26 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 11:09 AM Straggler has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 93 of 151 (507748)
05-07-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by onifre
05-07-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Hey, you asked the question.
It's not a response that requires a lot of words.
If you want a lot of words, don't ask a yes/no either/or question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 5:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 6:09 PM kuresu has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 151 (507749)
05-07-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kuresu
05-07-2009 5:31 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Hey, you asked the question.
It's not a response that requires a lot of words.
If you want a lot of words, don't ask a yes/no either/or question.
To be honest, I really enjoy reading your posts and was just antagonizing a bit of a more substantial reply from you. If you don't want to, that's cool, but know that it is welcome and appreciated as you always make an excellent argument that is challenging, Straggler as well.
-Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 05-07-2009 5:31 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 7:33 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 95 of 151 (507752)
05-07-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
05-07-2009 4:52 PM


Interpretations
Hey Oni
I see that you have responded to my last post whilst I was in the process of responding to Dronester. Thus making my final comments to him redundant.
I have not read your post yet I have simply clicked on "Reply". Rather than read through and then write a "strategic" response I am instead going to take a reactive approach and respond to each paragraph in turn.
Let's see how much you and I really do disagree (and how much I can contradict myself with this "freestyle" response tactic....)
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
Straggler writes:
In the context it was writen I took this to mean that you thought "big business" had decided that it wanted a democrat win. So "big business" arranged for a hopeless republican candidate to stand in order to ensure that this strategic aim was met.
Is this undeniably conspiratorial interpretation not what you meant?
Oni writes:
No it's not what I meant but, I can see how you arrived at such an interpretation from my posts. I think if we were face to face the context of what I've been trying to convey would be easier.
Fair enough.
Let me try it this way: I believe Mitt Romney would have beaten Obama - (we can get into the specific reasons if you like). I also feel that corporations with global investments would have rathered a democrat than a republican due to the current opinion of that party -(I think you would agree with that).
I think it would have been exceptionally difficult for virtually any "normal" Republican politician to have won the last US presidential election. In my view all but the most outrageously personally charismatic megastar would have been too tarnished by the failings of the previous Republican administration. But that is, as you have stated previously, speculation and opinion on my part.
I think that the absolute ideal situation for most large global corporations would have been a competent and successful ideologically minimalist-regulation, low tax, free-market-fundamentalist (inevitably Republican) candidate who had the full popular support of the American people.
However given the harsh realities of the situation "they" were probably happy to be rid of the failed and incompetent Bush administration and willing to compromise from the aforementioned ideal by jumping on the Democrat bandwagon.
So, if you had global interests would you not have used your influence and financial power, which you've agreed that corporations do, to push for one specific candidate?
At the time I probably would have gone down the "safer" Clinton route if I had that sort of money, influence and desire for power and profit.
But I am not sure how this argument equates to getting a specific 'bad' Republican presidential candidate (i.e. McCain-Palin) nominated so that they will eventually lose to the preferred Democratic candidate.
Nor am I convinced that at the presidential nominee stage there is a candidate that is universally preferred by enough corporations to justify the idea that this is the "big business" candidate in the way that you seem to be implying. The interests of different companies and industries are too dispirate and conflicting.
Remember that the current global conflicts have not gone anywhere, they are still alive and well. The former contractors are still the current contractors. The US military budget has not changed. More troops are being sent to Afgahn so the demand for weapons will still be high and the demand for companies to provide these weapons will still be high as well.
All valid points. BUT.....
Given the economic climate and the reasoning for the "fiscal stimulus" response, drastically cutting government spending in any area that would result in a major loss of jobs is not going to be very politically intelligent.
Also politically Democrats are always going to be in the position of having to prove that they are "tough" in the whole area of national defence as, for whatever reason, this is seen as a Republican stronghold and a Democrat weak point.
Obama's hands are tied for equally cynical but far more direct reasons than you are proposing. But I don't doubt that the arms industry is quite happy to support and encourage this situation.......On that we can agree.
In other words, "big" - military - "business" cares who the president will be, NOT because they won't get government contracts, that's not it at all, they(Big Military Business) cares who the president will be because the "people" will get the illusion that the US is not corrupt anymore, due to the exit and introduction of a new, seemigly different, administration and party, and thus support their governments tyranny. If the "people" support the governments actions Big Military Business continues to reep the financial gains.
Just to be clear - You are saying that the defence industry were united in their support not just for a change to a Democrat administration for PR purposes but for Obama specifically? At the presidential nominee stage of proceedings? That he was the "chosen" candidate of the defence industry? For global PR reasons?
Is that what you are saying?
So, now when we go into Afgahn for example, the general "opinion" of the "people" will be to support the invasion rather than be against it. Why, because it's not Bush doing it, it's the new guy that's in place doing it, and the general opinion of this "new guy" is that he is acting for the people not for corporations. The people are wrong in that sense!
I can certainly see how once Obama became a realistic candidate, how once he had quite evidently demonstrated his political adeptness at persuading people to vote for him in large numbers, that every corporation and industry would be falling over themselves to react to this by jumping on the bandwagon and hoping to achieve whatever influence they could.
I also don't doubt that a defence industry fearful of waning influence under a new less "obviously" compatible administration (i.e. one that did not have senior members also on the board of major defence contractors) would be delighted to point out the strategic, "moral" and political benefits of switching military emphasis in preference to military cuts.
But that is very different in terms of the proposed balance of power. Even if we agree that the practical result is the same. No?
Does that sound conspiratorial? Or does that sound like standard operating procedures?
I don't know. I am not sure you have tackled the main question directly.
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
My emphasis.
It is that "thus" that specifically still sounds conspiratorial. And I don't think you have explained what that "thus" means.
Are you saying that Mitt Romney was somehow intentionally denied the presidential nomination in favour of McCain because the defence industry specifically (or "big business" generally?) wanted a crap Republican candidate to lose the eventual presidential election to a Democrat?
Are you saying that the defence industry as a united whole identified Obama at the presidential nominee stage of proceedings as the best global public relations option and that his eventual success was, to a large extent, a direct result of this?
If so - Then yes that does potentially still sound pretty conspiratorial. But I guess it depends exactly how you are proposing this actually took place........?
If not - Then I can only continue to apologise for my ongoing misapprehension.
Could you clarify?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 4:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 05-08-2009 5:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 96 of 151 (507758)
05-07-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
05-07-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Obvious and Natural Conclusion
Kuresu writes:
If you want a lot of words, don't ask a yes/no either/or question.
Oni writes:
To be honest, I really enjoy reading your posts and was just antagonizing a bit of a more substantial reply from you. If you don't want to, that's cool, but know that it is welcome and appreciated as you always make an excellent argument that is challenging, Straggler as well.
As one who is usually able to find a "lot of words" regardless of requirement let me just say the following:
Guys I can feel the love emanating from my screen.
For what it is worth I reckon that if I, Oni and Kuresu were to hook up and hang out for a few beers we would have more in common than we would have to argue about. But that wouldn't stop us anyway.......
If ever either of you happen to visit London I would be delighted to meet up and show you around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 6:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 97 of 151 (507828)
05-08-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Straggler
05-07-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Straggler writes:
Nobody has claimed that big business ALWAYS gets their way. And nobody has claimed that anybody is claiming that big business ALWAYS gets their way.
Now we are just getting silly.........
Silly? Hmmm. Perhaps, but . . .
During the Bush Administration, it might seem they got their way OFTEN ENOUGH. Millions dead in an Illegal war based on lies, . . . supported by the corporate media. Shredding of constitution and liberties such as habeas corpus, torture, wire-tapping, . . . supported by the corporate media. Increased spending and graft for the industrial military complex (while decreasing social spending), . . . supported by the corporate media.
Would you also regard these facts above silly?
How about . . .
Did you know that General Electric owns NBC? Did you also know that General Electric produces military hardware? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias that NBC might have in news programming?
How about media military analysts placed on major broadcast networks with ties to the Pentagon? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias they might have toward "military-solutions"?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200804290005
What you call a cynical outlook, others might call reality-based.
I am fond of quotes. Here is another favorite . . .
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
I wish others (especially the once valued fourth estate) had less blind trust in government/big-business/corporate-media as I.
regards
Edited by dronester, : clarified quotes
Edited by dronester, : fixed quotes again. erroneous use of dBcode! Grrr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2009 2:33 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2009 3:40 PM dronestar has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 98 of 151 (507862)
05-08-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dronestar
05-08-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Did you know that General Electric owns NBC? Did you also know that General Electric produces military hardware? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias that NBC might have in news programming?
How about media military analysts placed on major broadcast networks with ties to the Pentagon? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias they might have toward "military-solutions"?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200804290005
What you call a cynical outlook, others might call reality-based.
Congrats. You found a liberal progressive organization that finds a conservative bias in the mass media.
That holds about as much water as citing the Heritage Foundation finding that the mass media has a liberal bias.
And isn't it ironic that the paper you deride for being conservative/fascist biased is the very paper reporting on the links between the military analysts and the pentagon? Was it really in the interest of big business to expose that link, as doing so would likely even further undermine confidence and trust in mass media, and thus diminish their ability to persuade us, which means less money for them as people no longer think a military solution is perhaps quite so good?
Really, try again. Google Scholar has a whole load of articles, produced by universities, published in journals such as the journal of political economy or the journal of communication.
What Media Matters is doing is important, but they do have an agenda and a bias, two things that can be eliminated or at least ameliorated by moving to actual research published in real academic journals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 11:09 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 3:59 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 151 (507879)
05-08-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dronestar
05-08-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Dronester writes:
Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their ways?
Straggler writes:
Nobody has claimed that big business ALWAYS gets their way. And nobody has claimed that anybody is claiming that big business ALWAYS gets their way.
Now we are just getting silly.........
Dronester writes:
Silly? Hmmm. Perhaps, but . . .
Oh for fucks sake. The "silly" comment was applied to you claiming that I am claiming that Onifre is claiming......etc. This ridiculous chain reaction of false claims is the thing being referred to as "silly".
During the Bush Administration, it might seem they got their way OFTEN ENOUGH. Millions dead in an Illegal war based on lies, . . . supported by the corporate media. Shredding of constitution and liberties such as habeas corpus, torture, wire-tapping, . . . supported by the corporate media. Increased spending and graft for the industrial military complex (while decreasing social spending), . . . supported by the corporate media.
Would you also regard these facts above silly?
No.
But what exactly are you saying? That the Bush administration was shit? That under the Bush administration in particular the distinction between government and "big business" was blurred because the same individuals were in charge of large sections of both? That the right wing fundamentalist politics of "economic freedom" is actually the very opposite in social and practical terms for the vast majority of people? That the Bush administration, despite it's obvious failings, was deeply successful in it's efforts to crap all over various rights and freedoms in the name of "national security"? That wealthy corporations have influence over politicians?
No disagreement from me there. Frankly you would be hard pressed to find someone more cynical about the Bush administration and it's aims than me.
Did you know that General Electric owns NBC? Did you also know that General Electric produces military hardware? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias that NBC might have in news programming?
How about media military analysts placed on major broadcast networks with ties to the Pentagon? Can you see a POSSIBLE bias they might have toward "military-solutions"?
And who do you think is disagreeing with any of this?
What you call a cynical outlook, others might call reality-based.
I wish others (especially the once valued fourth estate) had less blind trust in government/big-business/corporate-media as I.
I honestly don't think I have ever been accused of having blind faith in government before.
The thing I take issue with as regards to Onifre's comments (and your expressed support of them) is the sweeping generalisation, vagueness of terms and implied convulutedness of it all. At face value it is just undeniably conspiratorial.
Again let's consider the main comment under consideration:
Oni writes:
I disgaree with that, Mitt Romney would have, IMO, beaten Obama, thus McCain was selected by the republican party.
Now Oni has said he is not being conspiratorial BUT he has also not yet told us exactly what he actually did mean by this comment. Nor has he denied that it's most obvious meaning is not actually specifically what he intended.
So Dronester I am asking you - Do you think that "big business" somehow manipulated events such that a weaker Republican candidate was nominated for the presidential election because big business had decided that a Democrat president would be more expedient from a global and domestic public relations point of view?
Do you think that Obama is president because the CEO of Halliburton desired that outcome? Do you think that the individual CEO's of the other major defence contractors also (near unanimously but apparently independently) came to the conclusion that Obama was "their man" and thus independently used their financial muscle to meet this end?
Or if this is not what you think occurred could you please elaborate as to what exactly you do think occurred? When. Who. How. Specifically.
When - When did the defence industry decide which party they would unanimously prefer? When did the defence industry decide which person they wanted to be president?
Who - Who precisely decided that "the defence industry" wanted this person as president? The CEO of Halliburton? The CEO of some other defence contractor? All of the CEO's of the numerous defence companies? At the same time?
How - How did the defence industry meet this aim? By getting useless Republicans nominated so that a Democrat win was ensured?
Dronester writes:
I am fond of quotes. Here is another favorite . . .
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
I am fond of specifics. Here is your platform. Be vigilant. Tell us exactly how the present US administration and the arms industry of America are linked. When precisely. Who precisely. How precisely.
No vague terms like "big business", "the defence industry" or "obvious influence". Be specific. Tell us what you think.............
Over to you.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 11:09 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 4:08 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 111 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:44 AM Straggler has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 100 of 151 (507883)
05-08-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by kuresu
05-08-2009 2:33 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Errr, thanks for the encouragement Kuresu.
"You found a liberal progressive organization that finds a conservative bias in the mass media."
It would have been better if you said "Congrats. You found a liberal progressive organization that finds a conservative bias in the SUPPOSEDLY LIBERAL NY Times."
1. You are correct, the Times DOES OCCASIONALLY publish solid expose. However, effective propaganda doesn't just control what you read, it also controls what you don't read. Sins of omissions also serve the propaganda. Eg., according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), The Times had an embargo of all criticism of Bush before the 2004 election.
2. I noticed you only derided Mediamatters and not the two specific examples. Are the examples true or not? (BTW, the first example didn't come from Mediamatters)
3. These two examples weren't meant to be the only knockout pieces of evidence I hang my entire case on. Like a court case, if I can present enough quality evidence, then I hope to persuade an impartial jury. I also included some examples in message #70, #77, and #81. Do you wish to contest those examples too? For example . . .
4. I think EVEN YOU would agree with me that there IS graft in the US' half trillion $ ANNUAL defense budget. Eg., money for C-17 transport planes that the Air Force doesn't want, and the Secretary of Defense explicitly asked to *cut* them from the budget. The only people who still want the planes are the contractors who make money even if the finished planes sit idle, and the members of Congress who get campaign money from the contractors. C'mon Kuresu, that's just wrong. And you know only a tip of the iceberg. Will you agree on this point.
5. Have you read Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky "Manufactured Consent"?
Thanks for Google Scholar suggestion. Talk to ya on Monday.
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2009 2:33 PM kuresu has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 101 of 151 (507888)
05-08-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
05-08-2009 3:40 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
dronester writes:
I wish others (especially the once valued fourth estate) had less blind trust in government/big-business/corporate-media as I.
Straggler writes:
I honestly don't think I have ever been accused of having blind faith in government before.
Errm, I didn't accuse you specifically, it was meant as a general statement that went with the previous quote.
Thanks for the reply, I won't be able to respond fully until Monday. Thanks for your patience, have a good weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2009 3:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2009 4:22 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 102 of 151 (507892)
05-08-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dronestar
05-08-2009 4:08 PM


Re: Obvious and natural conclusion, no conspiracy
Dronester writes:
I wish others (especially the once valued fourth estate) had less blind trust in government/big-business/corporate-media as I.
Straggler writes:
I honestly don't think I have ever been accused of having blind faith in government before.
Dronester writes:
Errm, I didn't accuse you specifically, it was meant as a general statement that went with the previous quote.
OK. If you could more obviously aim your general comments at someone else other than me that would avoid confusion.
Thanks for the reply, I won't be able to respond fully until Monday. Thanks for your patience, have a good weekend.
Hopefully Onifre will have made his position clear before then. So let's see what he says.....................

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dronestar, posted 05-08-2009 4:08 PM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 151 (507900)
05-08-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
05-07-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Interpretations
I think it would have been exceptionally difficult for virtually any "normal" Republican politician to have won the last US presidential election.
Well, Mitt Romney is not just any "normal" politician. Romney was CEO of Bain & Company, and co-founder of Bain Capital. Romney's father was former Michigan Governor, American Motors chairman, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Nixon, and a 1968 presidential candidate.
In my opinion, this was no "normal" candidate, unless you intended for "normal" to mean something else?
But I am not sure how this argument equates to getting a specific 'bad' Republican presidential candidate (i.e. McCain-Palin) nominated so that they will eventually lose to the preferred Democratic candidate.
You have to question certain actions. At face value it may look normal, but, as a fan of logic, ask yourself why Palin? Why not a McCain/Romney ticket?
I can see only 2 reasons::
(1) The republican party, which is attached to big business(I don't think you disagree with that), made the choice to bring in Palin to guarantee a loss.
or,
(2) The republican party felt that Americans were dumb enough to change their vote because of a woman VP.
Either of the 2 requires a consensus from the republican party, so which do you think is the more plausable of the 2?
I feel it's the 1st one, which do you feel it was? If we disagree here on this point I think I'm cool with that.
Nor am I convinced that at the presidential nominee stage there is a candidate that is universally preferred by enough corporations to justify the idea that this is the "big business" candidate in the way that you seem to be implying. The interests of different companies and industries are too dispirate and conflicting.
Let's try to simplify the way we are using the term "big business".
When you're speaking of specific interests "big business" does not fit, we would have to present the actual specific business we're talking about - like defence, pharm, auto, etc. When we're speaking about the general goal of large corporations "big business" can be thrown in to cover the general spectrum of most large corporations.
So to answer your above quote, no, there obviously cannot be a universally prefered candidate. But, that's not to say that the universal goal for big business isn't a candidate that meets their specific interests.
Given the economic climate and the reasoning for the "fiscal stimulus" response, drastically cutting government spending in any area that would result in a major loss of jobs is not going to be very politically intelligent.
But yet even with a government bailout, GM has cut thousands of jobs, closed hundreds of factories, cut worker benefits, thousands have lost their job, etc. That's just GM. So, loss of jobs isn't their main concern, their main concern is not letting the company fold.
But I get your point.
Also politically Democrats are always going to be in the position of having to prove that they are "tough" in the whole area of national defence as, for whatever reason, this is seen as a Republican stronghold and a Democrat weak point.
For whatever reason? How about media persuasion?
That's ALL the media seems to do, create these illusionary issues, divide the general public into liberal/conservative, every single issue is divided, why? Why do they portray it like that?
It's a marginalizing tactic, IMO.
Also note that the way the democrats may "feel" doesn't justify continuing to fund an illegal war that has caused the death's of over 100,000 civilians and troops. But again, I get your point.
Obama's hands are tied for equally cynical but far more direct reasons than you are proposing. But I don't doubt that the arms industry is quite happy to support and encourage this situation.......On that we can agree.
Cool.
You are saying that the defence industry were united in their support not just for a change to a Democrat administration for PR purposes but for Obama specifically?
No. Maybe. I don't know. I doubt they went that far, but I would have no idea what they were actually doing.
All I'm saying is that the defence industry wanted a president that wasn't hated like Bush. That it worked out with Obama was just the way it worked out. If they personally supported him or not I cannot say. But the media did it's job in making Obama the featured, rockstar candidate, that most of American loved. If I was a defence industry executive I would have loved to see that opinion of him from the American public, and done whatever was in my power to make sure he was continuously shown in that light.
I can certainly see how once Obama became a realistic candidate, how once he had quite evidently demonstrated his political adeptness at persuading people to vote for him in large numbers, that every corporation and industry would be falling over themselves to react to this by jumping on the bandwagon and hoping to achieve whatever influence they could.
Ok. Now go one step further and see how he got to be that "rockstar character". Why was he the one choosen to give the speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention?
IMO, he was selected with the intentions that he would be able to change the worlds opinion of America. In (04) he had NOT established anything about his abilities to "do the job". Furthermore, during his campaighn he didn't establish why he was the better choice for the job. He simply had more appeal. More media hype. The rockstar quality. He was the iPhone G3 of presidencial candidates, and just like with the iPhone, people camped out over night to be the first to get to the early voting.
new less "obviously" compatible administration
This administration is NOT less compatible with the defence agenda, show me how it's less compatible?
It is that "thus" that specifically still sounds conspiratorial.
Why? You agreed that republicans have big business connections, in fact you stated that sometimes they are one in the same. So what's so far fetched about the republicans taking a dive in this election so that their big business affiliates can reep the benefits?
I also feel the democrats took a dive when they picked John Kerry. 2 more years of Bush fuck ups pretty much guaranteed them control of the house and senate, and with the (08) elections going to a democrat as well, the have control of all 3 branches of our government. Seems like a good plan. So, the dems took a dive to gain control of the house and senate, and the rep took a dive to satisfy their corporate affiliates.
It may sound conspiratorial, maybe, I guess, depends on how you look at it.
Are you saying that Mitt Romney was somehow intentionally denied the presidential nomination in favour of McCain because the defence industry specifically (or "big business" generally?) wanted a crap Republican candidate to lose the eventual presidential election to a Democrat?
No. The defence industry wanted a president that would give the US more global appeal. If I had to take a shot at guessing how or who decided, I would say it was a consensus amoung the republican parties higher memebers who picked McCain and ruined any chance of winning by giving him Palin. But this I admit is purely speculative. How it is done is very secretive. I'm just swinging in the dark. But I think it makes logical sense, you seem to be fond of logic, what do you think? Logical or not? and if not, why?
Could you clarify?
Hope I did.
PS. Thanks for the invite to London. I'm in the works for a UK tour next year but no specifics yet. I may be doing a Middle East tour first, but I'll defintely let you know if I'm in London. If Kuresu makes it there too I say we get him drunk and cut his hair, for fun, you know, laughs and shit.
If you, or Kuresu, are ever in Miami, Fl. the same invitation is extended to you guys from me.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2009 6:38 PM onifre has replied
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2009 12:41 PM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2599 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 104 of 151 (507901)
05-08-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
05-08-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Interpretations
I can see only 2 reasons::
And your argument falls apart. Familiar with the false dichotomy, right? There are more than two reasons, some more or less valid than others.
McCain's goal was obviously to win. So why did Palin become the VP nominee?
Given that McCain's goal is to win, your first choice doesn't make any sense. If is his goal was to lose, you have to show that. People generally don't run for office with the goal of losing. They might run knowing they will never win but to try and make a point (see: Nader).
Your second choice requires knowing what the republican party's thought process was about the Palin pick. Did they expect to pick up voters because Palin was a woman? Yes. Was that the only group they expected to pick up? No. They were gunning for the most important republican constituency--social conservatives. The moral majority was vocally unhappy with McCain. He just wasn't one of them like Bush was. Now then, McCain is aiming to win. He needs his bases covered, and a key base is slipping away. Mike Huckabee could have been a good choice to shore up social conservative support. Romney? Never. The moral majority is even more uncomfortable with him than with McCain (he's moderate and -gasp!- mormon). So why not Huckabee or some other popular social conservative? Well, the woman angle certainly makes sense in this narrative. Two for the price of one: pick off disgruntled Clinton supporters, get the social conservative vote.
Of course, this article from Politico can help answer why Palin (though it doesn't actually say what her answers were):
McCain vetter: Palin nailed interview - POLITICO
And it's not hard to see the response of the social conservatives to her: she's far more popular than Huckawho?
So here we now have several possible answers as to why it was a McCain/Palin ticket:
1)to lose the race
2)to capture, or at least improve their standing in the "I want to vote for a woman" crowd
3)to shore up social conservative support
4)because McCain liked her over all the others that he could have had
5)some combination of the previous reasons
6)some reason I could be completely missing
Personally, I think electoral math played a large role in her selection. If it wasn't for the fact that she did so miserably in interviews, the one debate, or had various ethical problems, or if she hadn't manage to alienate so many more voters than she actually attracted, the race could have been closer.
I also feel the democrats took a dive when they picked John Kerry. 2 more years of Bush fuck ups pretty much guaranteed them control of the house and senate, and with the (08) elections going to a democrat as well, the have control of all 3 branches of our government. Seems like a good plan. So, the dems took a dive to gain control of the house and senate, and the rep took a dive to satisfy their corporate affiliates.
It may sound conspiratorial, maybe, I guess, depends on how you look at it.
Why does it sound conspiratorial? Namely, because Kerry wasn't running to lose. What you're arguing is that politicians are purposefully, strategically losing now to build up for the future. How does that make any sense? What if Bush didn't fuck up Katrina? What if bin Laden was actually found? What if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had actually turned out well? Then planning on losing is the losing proposition, because voters reward success. You don't really know what the future holds. You can try and predict it. Some things are actually relatively easy to predict (such as the Iraq war morass). But other things, like Katrina (did you know in 2004 that Katrina would hit New Orleans in 2005, much less that there would be a Katrina that year?), aren't.
So you've laid out this brilliant strategy. We know that the republicans will screw it all up. So let's lose now. When they've taken their hits, we can pick up the whole game in one swoop. Except you can't actually know, and people generally, if ever run to lose on purpose.
PS. Thanks for the invite to London. I'm in the works for a UK tour next year but no specifics yet. I may be doing a Middle East tour first, but I'll defintely let you know if I'm in London. If Kuresu makes it there too I say we get him drunk and cut his hair, for fun, you know, laughs and shit.
If you, or Kuresu, are ever in Miami, Fl. the same invitation is extended to you guys from me.
Heh. Well, the only way you'll get me drunk is to trick me. I don't drink. So no such luck trying to get me drunk and then cut my hair. But if I do go to London or Miami will certainly look you all up.
Edited by kuresu, : I hate negatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 05-08-2009 5:34 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by onifre, posted 05-08-2009 7:44 PM kuresu has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3037 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 105 of 151 (507906)
05-08-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kuresu
05-08-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Interpretations
And your argument falls apart. Familiar with the false dichotomy, right? There are more than two reasons, some more or less valid than others.
Sure, there can be a billion reasons, but I can see only 2.
Given that McCain's goal is to win, your first choice doesn't make any sense.
So, you believe, honestly believe, that the VP decision was made solely by McCain himself and not his advisors?
IMO, they convinced him she was the right pick - that I'll believe. McCain most likely did make the decision honestly, due to his advisors advice.
Did they expect to pick up voters because Palin was a woman? Yes.
That's a selling point to convince McCain that she's a better choice. One that works.
The moral majority was vocally unhappy with McCain.
How did Palin help?
Now then, McCain is aiming to win.
McCain can be "aiming" for whatever he wants, he was selected as the nominee because he was 75 years old and a sure loss to either Obama or Clinton.
The media however, made sure Clinton didn't win.
McCain had no chance against Obama. Romney, in my opinion, did. Younger, better looking, taller, more appealing, long history in Politics, etc. For fuck sake he even looked like Reagan. The chance, if the republicans were looking to lose this one, could not be taken with Romney, it would have been too close for comfort. This is just my opinion, having analized how it all went down.
If it sounds conspiratorial, then maybe we just analize things differently.
Romney? Never. The moral majority is even more uncomfortable with him than with McCain (he's moderate and -gasp!- mormon).
Where did you get that from FoxNews or MSNBC? Sounds like propaganda to me, dude. That sounds like the very type of crap the media instigates that I've been telling Straggler gets fed to the public.
The media manifests these bullshit opinions about certain candidates then they spreads it through the airwaves, next thing you know "the moral majority doesn't like Romney, next on FoxNews!". People tune in, hear that and figure "well I'm one of these republican folk I guess that's my opinion of him too".
But I guess we analize things differently.
Well, the woman angle certainly makes sense in this narrative. Two for the price of one: pick off disgruntled Clinton supporters, get the social conservative vote.
This also sounds like deceptive media crap. This may be what they've told us in the media that it was for, but either they think people are that stupid or they are liars and that's not the real reason.
I guess we just analize things differently.
Personally, I think electoral math played a large role in her selection. If it wasn't for the fact that she did so miserably in interviews, the one debate, or had various ethical problems, or if she hadn't manage to alienate so many more voters than she actually attracted, the race could have been closer.
Personally, I disagree. Palin was a train wreck waiting to happen. McCain/Palin, even if Palin would have been perfect, didn't stand a chance, why, McCain vs Obama ends in a KO no matter who his running mate was. Palin just "sealed the deal".
I guess we just analize things differently.
Namely, because Kerry wasn't running to lose.
Kerry could want anything he wants, he was selected by the Dems to lose.
What you're arguing is that politicians are purposefully, strategically losing now to build up for the future.
Individual politicians, as I've continuously said, I feel DO work honestly and for what they stand for - not all, of course - but it's beyond them.
You can try and predict it.
Exactly. You have analist that work on this very thing and make future predictions, and develop a stratagy. One being to lose the presidencial elections in (04) and win the House and Senate. Do I think this was a unified effort, of course not. Small groups of people with power pushing for one specific person by controling the media, which they own. Yes, the democrats too.
So you've laid out this brilliant strategy. We know that the republicans will screw it all up. So let's lose now. When they've taken their hits, we can pick up the whole game in one swoop. Except you can't actually know, and people generally, if ever run to lose on purpose.
Bush was failing in Iraq. The lies were starting to surface about the WMD's. I don't have to repeat it we all know what was being brought to light. Bush was destined to either fail completely or leave a bad taste in the US publics mind. The Dems didn't want that tone of crap thrown on them so close to a mid-term election that they could win and take control with. However, if they win the presidency and can't handle the situation in Iraq, because frankly at that time it was one fucked up mess waiting to explode, the "people" may simply get a bad taste for the Dems and blame the whole fiasco on them, that's a risk that, IMO, they were not willing to take. Any political analist working in the Dems camp would have been able to predict Bush's failure.
Well, the only way you'll get me drunk is to trick me.
I'll start working on a plan now.
But if I do go to London or Miami will certainly look you all up.
Cool
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 05-08-2009 6:38 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2009 5:37 AM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024