Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who will be the next world power?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 106 of 151 (507948)
05-09-2009 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by onifre
05-08-2009 7:44 PM


Re: Interpretations
Kerry could want anything he wants, he was selected by the Dems to lose.
See, this is the problem.
This goes against everything in politics, and really, in power.
You have to convincingly show us that the democrats picked Kerry to lose. That the republicans picked McCain to lose.
There's the conspiracy. There's the puppetmasters that you need to show us.
Who picks the nominees? Well, the voters. Which means all the voters have to be in on the game, or else it's not going to work.
Ask the democrats from 2004. Ask them if they were purposefully trying to lose.
Ask the republicans from 2008. Ask them if they were purposefully trying to lose.
The answer is no. Why?
The game, as you said, is power.
In the game of power, you seek to maximize how much of it you have.
Being locked out of the presidency minimizes your power, and there is no guarantee you can get the presidency next time anyhow. Politics is not like chess or war, where tactically losing (feinting) can lead to a big strategic win. In chess and war, you have greater control over the future events than you do in politics (particularly in chess, in which future moves are quite restricted).
It's not just big business angling for power, but politicians. They're not simply tools of big business to carry out their agenda. The party in power basically always gets more donations, because that's where the political power to get stuff done lies. If you're not in charge, you don't have the political power necessary, and so the money won't be rolling in trying to convince you to enact legislation beneficial to big business. This would tie into your conspiracy theory, no?
Where did you get that from FoxNews or MSNBC? Sounds like propaganda to me, dude
From the very mouths of social conservatives. Same for their opinion on Palin. Go read some right-wing blogs, like FreeRepublic, or PajamasTV. It may have been propaganda, but propaganda can work really well off of previous prejudices; Obama is different, and so all the propaganda about him (terrorist, muslim, etc) works really well because it plays into people's preconceived fears and ideas. Same thing about Romney; he supported the right to have an abortion (a litmus test for many a social conservative) and generally quite socially moderate, and he was -gasp!- mormon, a group viewed warily for some reason by a lot of social conservatives.
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.
A couple of problems. You focused on "the reason", not "reasons". Choices are rarely down to one specific thing. And second, it's a pretty safe bet to say they do think people are that stupid, as Palin did actually draw off some disgruntled voters because she was a woman; check out the exit polls and other polling on the issue. But it's not the only reason.
Palin lit a spark in the social conservative crowd. Even today she's really quite popular with them, and again, the exit polls show that a lot of people voted for McCain/Palin simply because Palin was Bush--one of them. Not because she was a woman. Without Palin, but with Romney, they likely would have stayed home (as happened in some cases anyhow, such as in Ohio).
Your conspiracy theory rests on people purposefully looking to minimize their power in order to maximize it later, but without any guarantees that they will be able to. Here's a test case for you.
The republicans lost badly over 2006 and 2008. Why did they lose? Well, the voters were unhappy with them. But what if they were losing on purpose? What do they hope to gain? They've lost all their power. They no longer chair the important committees, soon they can't even filibuster (not that Specter will actually vote for the legislation, but if he doesn't vote to break the filibuster I can guarantee he'll be thrown out in the primary) to stop legislation. They don't have the ability to set the agenda. So why would they lose on purpose? Here's your chance to prove a conspiratorial theory in situ, without any monday morning quaterbacking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by onifre, posted 05-08-2009 7:44 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 151 (508117)
05-10-2009 6:52 PM


Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
For Kuresu and Straggler,
I'll get to your post, Kuresu, probably Monday, but here's something for you and Straggler to think about.
Here's an old Op-Ed piece I rememberd reading in the NY Times written by Mitt Romney. This, IMO, could be considered one of the reasons Romney wasn't wanted by certain representatives of Big Auto Business.
Not that this is IT, but this can give us an idea as to why the republican party, being lobbied by the Auto Industy(ie. Big Business, Straggler), didn't want Romney.
Let Detriot go bankrupt, By: MITT ROMNEY, Published: November 18, 2008.
quote:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
And:
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
Also:
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass they bet on management and they lost.
finally:
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
However, the shareholders wanted the bailout. Mitt was against it. Does it sound conspiratorial to think that the Auto Industry had a hand in McCain being pushed before Romney?
If you were a shareholder, CEO, executive, in the Auto Industry wouldn't you have endorsed McCain and done whatever you could to make sure Romney doesn't win?
As fate should have it though...
Apparently, now, the Auto Industry is going to go bankrupt anyways, at least 2 companies will be:
GM's Inevitable Bankrupt, By: TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
quote:
GM, which has received $15.4 billion in federal aid, faces a June 1 government deadline to complete its restructuring plan. If it can't finish in time, the company will follow Detroit competitor Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy protection.
So it looks like in the end, Obama, was the better choice, as now the Auto Industry gets federal aid AND bankruptcy protection. Did they have a hand in it? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it conspiratorial to think that too?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : Changed bailout in final comment to "federal aid" as per kuresu's post

"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by kuresu, posted 05-10-2009 7:13 PM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 108 of 151 (508122)
05-10-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
05-10-2009 6:52 PM


Re: Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
A minor quibble for starters.
It's a little difficult to call the federal aid given to the auto companies a bailout, because the money didn't bail them out of anything.
If it did, they wouldn't be headed towards bankruptcy right now.
Anyhow, that money has to be repaid to the federal government. Sure, get the money now, but how much fun can it be to have to pay it back? That's going to cut into any profits they do manage to make. The interest of a company is in making profits. Of course, they can only make profits if they survive, but the funds they got didn't manage that, so now not only do they have to pay back the money they borrowed, they have to go through bankruptcy. If there's a conspiracy there, somebody got it really wrong and has a very sour lemon right now.
On another note, what, exactly, did the federal aid go to? Well, unlike AIG, it seems that the money (so far as we've heard) has actually gone to creditors and whoever else GM and Chrysler owed money to. It kept them from failing last december. Did you really want them to fail last december? At least now we can probably better absorb the shock that's coming. Last december, had they failed when everything else was definitely in the shitter, it would certainly be worse than now.
Finally, auto company home Michigan voted for Romney in the republican primary. If there's going to be any place that the auto industry has undeniable influence, it's there. So if the auto industry wanted McCain over Romney, they failed big time in their backyard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 05-10-2009 6:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by onifre, posted 05-10-2009 9:47 PM kuresu has replied
 Message 122 by xongsmith, posted 05-11-2009 2:46 PM kuresu has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 109 of 151 (508144)
05-10-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kuresu
05-10-2009 7:13 PM


Re: Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
It's a little difficult to call the federal aid given to the auto companies a bailout, because the money didn't bail them out of anything.
Yeah I noticed in my final comment I wrote "bailout" instead of "federal aid", which I have since changed.
But my point wasn't about what actually took place, I was simply refering to the campaign portion of the issue. Where each candidate stood on Auto Industry Bailouts.
McCain on Auto Industry bailout:
quote:
The government recently promised the auto industry $25 billion in loans in order to produce more fuel-efficient models. Now, as General Motors and Chrysler consider a merger, executives are hinting at another $10 billion in federal help. Earlier this week, top McCain adviser Carly Fiorina said the campaign opposes any auto bailout:
I don’t think the government can rescue the industry, Carly Fiorina, former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Corp, told Reuters at an event in suburban Detroit.Whatever the government does, it should not take away the fundamentals of risk-taking. Sometimes it leads to rewards and sometimes consequences, downside, she said. In other words, the auto industry cannot be saved from its own bad bets.
Interviewed on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed support for the auto industry bailouts:
Q: We’re finding out that there may be a possibility of some sort of bail-out or government assistance for the auto industry. Would that be something that you would support?
MCCAIN: Well, we’ve already done that to $25 billion, and we’ve delayed getting them the money. I would do whatever I think needs to be done to help our automotive industry. We’ve got to make this transition to flex fuel, battery powered, hydrogen automobiles. And, obviously and, also, I would provide tax credits for people who buy these new automobiles. We’ve got to keep this industry alive. There’s no doubt about that.
Finally:
McCain has been slowly creeping towards supporting bailouts for the auto industry. In June, he stated, Frankly I just don’t see a scenario where the federal government would come in and bail out any industry in America today. Earlier this week, McCain was on the fence, telling NBC, Let’s get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes. Finally, today, he hinted at full support for more bailouts.
GE owns NBC. Big business supporting big business. Just another little connection from long time "friends" GE Helps Drive Lighting Innovation at New GM Assembly Plant
quote:
HENDERSONVILLE, NC — GE Lighting Systems, Inc., will provide General Motors Corp., with its newly available NuVation Electronic Ballast Lighting System in GM's new 2.4-million square foot, three-building manufacturing complex in Delta Township, Michigan. More than 2,500 GM employees involved with body shop, paint shop, general assembly and office activities will work at the complex when it begins operations in 2006.
"GM is taking advantage of the cost of light concept," says GE's Armstrong. "GM employees and the community as a whole benefit from GM's commitment to finding and deploying these kinds of advanced energy-saving solutions."
First in June McCain doesn't support bailouts. I don't have the date for the interview, I tried to see it on the video provided in the link, but he then slowly "changes his mind" on it. Really?
Source
McCain supported bailouts, Romney did not. Romney was not the chosen one, McCain was. I call shenanigans!!!
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : Added GE connection to GM

"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 108 by kuresu, posted 05-10-2009 7:13 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 2:20 AM onifre has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 110 of 151 (508164)
05-11-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by onifre
05-10-2009 9:47 PM


Re: Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
McCain supported bailouts, Romney did not. Romney was not the chosen one, McCain was. I call shenanigans!!!
This is too funny. Do you know when McCain had the nomination wrapped up? March 08. That would be when both he and Romney were against auto bailouts. Indeed, that would be before the bailouts were even an issue.
The date of the interview, if TP is any indication, is Oct. 31st. His previous stance was articulated in June. Why might McCain be switching position? Well, he kind of said that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" at the wrong time. People started buying into Obama's economic message more than into McCain's. McCain wants to win, so he begins (too, too late) to try and change his pitch.
Your timing is all off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by onifre, posted 05-10-2009 9:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by onifre, posted 05-11-2009 10:41 AM kuresu has replied

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


Message 111 of 151 (508184)
05-11-2009 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
05-08-2009 3:40 PM


Part 1
Straggler writes:
If ever either of you (Kuresu and Oni) happen to visit London I would be delighted to meet up and show you around.
Oni writes:
If you, or Kuresu, are ever in Miami, Fl. the same invitation is extended to you guys from me.
(Two invitations served, and I am on neither guest list. For christ's sake, I'm standing right in front of you! Sheesh. (Damn that Stile, he said I would be more likeable/credible with an avatar!)
Hey Straggler,
I broke this long missive into five parts, starting with this Part 1 . . .
I am a little dismayed that I am having difficulties fully persuading you of my viewpoint. As long as I am not claiming big-business always gets its way, only that its historic interaction with the government largely influences the nations course, I don't see the reason for such a drawn out discussion. Oh well, . . .
Re-reading the thread helped me re-evaluate our discussion. It seems like you are near agreement. Sorta. Here's a quick replay:
1. You replied to my post #70, and said my Cheney reference was an obviously excellent example. But unfortunately, you also thought it was an anomaly. (Sheesh.)
2. In my message #70, the 5th point read:
dronester writes:
5. Members of Congress who get campaign money from the military contractors".
You apparently missed this item. In your post # 72 you ask:
Straggler writes:
But what does this tell us about the ability of "big business" as a whole (whoever that is) to manipulate the government to the extent that has been suggested?"
In my post # 77, I re-posted this:
dronester writes:
Bribery is one sort of effective manipulation. Perhaps you missed my #5 item addition from my last post? Members of Congress get "campaign money" from the military/business contractors.
You never replied to this repeated point. The first time you didn't reply, perhaps it was a simple oversight. But does the second non-reply indicate concession?
Anyway, add high-paid lobbyists and crony insiders, and large-scale manipulation is inevitable.
Also, you haven't responded to my items from my post #100, (although post #100 was addressed to Kuresu). As I wrote in post 100, my argument won't be won using one large single fact, but rather, many smaller significant ones. IF I am scoring any points, then you could acknowledge them to help move the discussion forward.
3. Your post #83, you conclude about Oni and my views:
Straggler writes:
sounds pretty cynical but not unduly conspiratorial.
Marvelous.
4. In your post #99:
Straggler writes:
I honestly don't think I have ever been accused of having blind faith in government before.
Again, marvelous. This indicates that you think you have at least a somewhat skeptical nature toward government, . . . maybe even similar to me.
So, with these specific points in mind, I am hypothesizing that we have at least somewhat similar viewpoints. How similar? Let's use the ol' one-to-ten scale. "One" is complete blind trust toward the government. Think Britney Spears when she said:
Spears writes:
"I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.
The other side is "ten". Maybe an Oregon aluminum-hat-wearing, anarchist-survivalist-conspiracy-theorist of all things.
I would place myself on this scale as a "seven". AS A GUESS, I would place you as an average "five". If you agree this is nearly true, I would be wasting my time and effort to get you to see a measly two-point difference in our philosophies. Thanks for the interesting discussion, but we are done.
If you agree, save yourself some time and effort and disregard the following posts.
If you don't agree or are merely curious, then proceed to the next posts . . .`
Edited by dronester, : Confused replies from Kuresu with you, re-edited

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 112 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:45 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 116 by onifre, posted 05-11-2009 10:02 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2009 2:12 PM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 112 of 151 (508185)
05-11-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:44 AM


Part 2
Straggler writes:
Here is your platform. Be vigilant. Tell us exactly how the present US administration and the arms industry of America are linked.
Part 2, keeping in mind you live in London, Here's a brief American history lesson:
The founding fathers were not as democratic as US schools have made them. Some urged there to be a King. Equal rights were non-existent. Blacks and women could not vote. And more importantly to our discussion, only property owners could vote. The thinking was, only the rich (elite rulers) could properly govern the nation. The unwashed masses needn't concern themselves with the politics of the day. Indeed (I know how very much you like my quotes), here's another favorite of mine regarding the true purpose of government:
Madison writes:
To Protect the Minority of the Opulent Against the Majority"- James Madison, Founding Father of America, 1789
Though some attempt to subvert the quote, I believe it clearly shows the purpose of American government 200 hundred years ago, . . . as it does today.
Part 3 coming up . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:44 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:47 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2009 2:32 PM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 113 of 151 (508186)
05-11-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:45 AM


Part 3
OK, here's Part 3, . . .
I strongly agree that the government, corporate media, and big-business act together to control/enhance their power and profits.
Since you entertained my Cheney example, but thought it was an anomaly, perhaps I just need to show you more examples of cronyism/interaction.
Straggler writes:
No vague terms like "big business", "the defence industry", etc"
OK, then let's specify some of the players in the these "vague" terms:
BIG-BUSINESS/DEFENSE INDUSTRY
Here are some of the military mega-corporations that suck corporate welfare from the tax-payers teat. I wanted to mostly concentrate on military contractors who get nearly half a TRILLION dollars of contracts EVERY year from the US's "defense" budget. (If I write half TRILLION dollars enough times, perhaps a reader may think a half TRILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL budget is a lot of money. For instance, according to UNICEF, just a tenth of that amount would nearly cure world hunger or all worldwide treatable childhood diseases (like malaria). But I guess that isn't as important as military graft. Rant off):
General Electric,
Westinghouse,
Lockheed Martin,
Boeing,
Northrop Grumman Corp,
Ratheon,
TRW,
General Dynamics,
Halliburton,
Carlyle Group, etc..
So what? First off, there are the enormous campaign donations.
So what? They usually give to BOTH Democratic AND Republican parties but never to independent or socialist parties. Doesn't that overwhelmingly indicate they don't care which party wins? Do you think this makes for FAIR presidential candidate races? Or might things be . . . manipulated?
CORPORATE MEDIA
GENERAL ELECTRIC owns NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
WESTINGHOUSE owns CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
DISNEY owns ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America, ESPN, Lifetime Television, others
TIME-WARNER TBS owns America Online (AOL), CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network.
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS owns Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and NEWS Broadcasting
Who owns CNN? or MSNBC? ABC? : LA IMC
So what? Hmm, wasn't General Electric and Westinghouse in the first list also? Hmm, interaction of business and corporate media? Conflicts of interest? Cronyism much?
GOVERNMENT
Frankly, any American historical political list of cronyism is nearly infinite. I wouldn't even scratch the surface. I read Joe Conason's book "Big Lies" and he writes it would be possible, but GRIM and MORALLY EXHAUSTING, to write only about the Bush family connections. From just a few generations back, Bush family and associates in international companies range across every sector of modern economy: oil, banking, equities, venture capital, computer software, life insurance, high tech security, real estate, cable television, fruit and vegetable imports, irrigation, airline, etc. As Oni and I have said before, the cronyism is so entrenched, it hardly matters if a Democrat or Republican is elected. Perhaps it wouldn't even matter if an independent or socialist became president.
OK, how about one specific example of Bush cronyisms, . . . how about the Carlyle Group. From Conason's "Big Lies, "[the Carlyle Group is] . . . possibly the most influential and successful company based on crony capitalism. Carlyle Group's web site described it as "an investment strategy focused upon the intersection of government and business". Among Carlyle's partners are numerous Reagan and Bush I administration figures including R. Darman (advisor to Bush I), James Baker III Secretary of State, campaign chairman, chief attorney for Bush II. The firm involving his father and father's closest associates was awarded Texas public investment contracts at the beginning and end of Bush II Governor's term. Two other notible figures involved was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. And in Saudi Arabia where Carlyle serves as defense advisor to the kingdom . . . the BIN LADEN family were also investors. Hmmm, I don't recall reading this in any corporate media. I wonder why?
Ok, how about an example from a democratic President. Of all the cronyistic things Clinton approved, in my opinion, few were worse than the pro-big-business-over-the-population's-interest "Telecommunications Act of 1996".
From Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Wikipedia . . .
"The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996[6] and 6 in 2005.
An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.
Perhaps, just perhaps, if we had more than a handful of major corporate-media companies, maybe, just maybe, some of them would have done their job of notifying the public that Bush II was lying about Iraq, and possibly thwarting the immoral and illegal Iraq invasion. IMO, this is a grand lesson of what happens when the public or the institutions that are supposed to serve the public are subverted, instead to serve big-business.
NOTE: Although most of FOX News' Rupert Murdoch’s donations do go to GOP candidates, he did give $4,200 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign last year, and he held a fundraiser for her at News Corp’s New York headquarters. This year, he has given $2,300 to the Clinton Presidential campaign, and his son James has given $3,450. All told News Corp execs have donated $20,900 to her presidential campaign. WordPress › Error
Does this not emphasize how little it matters which democrat or republican party wins the presidency?
Part 4 coming up . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:45 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:50 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 118 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 10:58 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 05-12-2009 2:43 PM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 114 of 151 (508188)
05-11-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:47 AM


Part 4
Part 4,
ELECTION FIASCO
Another big sub-topic, surprisingly it wasn't brought up in our thread, . . . here's a quick overview . . .
ELECTION FRAUD. Surely you heard about American "irregularities" such as unclear butterfly ballots, dangling chads, insufficient voting booths for democratic precincts, proprietary programmed electronic voting machines with no papertrail, pushpull polls, police intimidation at the voting booths, and the purging of thousands of legal names that were illegally put on a convict-no-right-to-vote list, etc. As the supposed democracy-beacon to the world, America's voting procedures is in actuality like a banana republic. The dirty tricks of the two major parties is completely unethical and often illegal.
SYSTEMATIC VOTER DISENFRANCHISING. About HALF of all American eligible voters vote. They are convinced no matter what they do, nothing will matter. Individually, perhaps they are right. After 9/11, the Bush administration urged the population to go about their business and continue to shop. Big daddy Bush and his administration will take care of the bad boogey men. Best not to look or care at what Bush will be doing to keep your family safe. Afterall, government business should not concern the population, should it?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES ARE A SCAM . . .
The presidential debates not only exclude legitimate third-party candidates, but are structured in a way to inhibit meaningful engagement between the candidates over the major issues of the presidential race.
the debates are not publicly-funded events. Like the Olympics, they are sponsored by MAJOR CORPORATIONS
They are sponsored by MAJOR CORPORATIONS! The bi-partisan committee, The Commission on Presidential Debates, Commission on Presidential Debates decides how long, where, how many, what questions will be asked, what questions will NOT be asked, and whether or not to exclude other candidates based on made-up criteria. It reduces the election process to a TV game show. It's a complete sham. And just one more way big-business, corporate media, and the government can ATTEMPT to successfully control voters decisions.
Eureka Street
Part 5 coming up . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:47 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:57 AM dronestar has not replied

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


Message 115 of 151 (508190)
05-11-2009 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:50 AM


Part 5
Part 5, the Conclusion . . .
Straggler writes:
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?"
"When? Who? How? Specifically?"
I think I kind of already answered these questions way back in my message #59:
dronester writes:
You'll note there is no difference between Bush and Obama's annual military budget.
I have OFTEN asserted there is little policy difference in the Republican and Democrat parties. The needs of the population (universal health care, education) usually comes second to big-business. The same military contractors have been around for decades, their needs always come first. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a H. Clinton administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a Mike Huckabee administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in Romney administration. I can't prove it, but I doubt there would be much difference in a McCain administration. The budget for the military would get the largest cut, and health care and education, the smallest cuts.
You never heard a democratic or republic candidate say he /she wanted to weaken/decrease the military budget. The media would portray that person as weak on terrorism. And the American public's cowardly manner after 9/11 guarantees they'll never vote for that type of candidate. This leaves candidates like Nader, Kucinich, and Dean out.
HOWEVER, note my past message #77 "Who has argued that big business ALWAYS gets their complete ways?" Admittedly, big-business is buffeted to a small degree against the will of the population. But, perhaps you would have to go back to 1933's
Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal to find examples of big-business taking a back seat to the populations interests.
As Oni has speculated, big-business probably competes to get their favorite of the elites elected. But in the end, either of the two party candidates would continue the same half TRILLION dollar military budget.
Phew. I hope these five posts convincingly show that the government, corporate media, and big-business act together to control/enhance their power and profits.
cheerio

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:50 AM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 151 (508199)
05-11-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:44 AM


Re: Part 1
(Two invitations served, and I am on neither guest list. For christ's sake, I'm standing right in front of you! Sheesh. (Damn that Stile, he said I would be more likeable/credible with an avatar!)
Great posts, Dronester!!! I'd have a hard time seeing it any other way than what you and I have been trying to convey, from your posts.
PS. My bad on not extending you the same hospitality, you are more than welcome to look me up as well if you are ever in Miami. I must admit though, from your first avitar pic I thought you were a magician, it made you look like David Copperfield. But the new one is more likeable/credible...no one ever trusts a magician.

"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 111 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:44 AM dronestar has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 117 of 151 (508202)
05-11-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by kuresu
05-11-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
Do you know when McCain had the nomination wrapped up? March 08. That would be when both he and Romney were against auto bailouts.
The underlying point is that McCain WAS selected nominee, he then changed his opinion on the bailouts, hmmm, why? Even though Romney stuck to his guns about the bailout.
What were McCains reasons to support the bailout? Did he ever give anything substancial for a reason? - No. He just changed his mind, convinently AFTER he wins.
Can an assumtion be made about a possible change of opinion due to financial backing and support from certain members of the republican party who have major ties with the Auto Industry and those that will be affected by it? - I'd say yes.
Well, he kind of said that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" at the wrong time. People started buying into Obama's economic message more than into McCain's.
Problem: Neither McCain or Obama supported bailouts in March, yet both changed their minds. Plus even in October McCain is vaguely supportive. But, does support the 25 billion that was once promissed to the Auto Industry by Congress.
Here's McCain by October:
McCain cautious on U.S. auto industry bailout
Wed Oct 29, 2008
quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday declined to embrace the idea of $15 billion more in government aid for the struggling U.S. automobile industry but did not rule it out.
McCain noted the U.S. Congress recently authorized $25 billion in low-interest loans to help the industry retool to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.
"Let's get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes," McCain said.
Here's Obama in March:
Obama gets tough on auto bailouts
by The Associated Press Monday March 30, 2008
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama refused further long-term federal bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler, saying more concessions were needed from unions, creditors and others before they could be approved. He raised the possibility today of controlled bankruptcy for one or both of the beleaguered auto giants.
Here's Obama by November:
Obama Supports Government Assistance for Auto Industry, Emanuel Says
President-Elect Backs Aid Through 'Existing Authority'
By MARY BRUCE Nov. 9, 2008
quote:
In his first interview since joining the Barack Obama team, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said this morning that Obama supports government assistance for the auto industry using existing authority.
Emanuel talks on the senator's role on the Homeland Security Committee.
More Photos"First the auto industry is an essential part of our economy and an essential part of our industrial base," Emanuel said in a "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" interview.
"Second they should look at accelerating the $25 billion that was offered for re-tooling for the industry going forward.
Flip flop much guys?
Yet Romney stayed opposed throughout the whole campaign and into Novemebr. He didn't get the nominee, he didn't get the VP nod, he didn't win anything. However, the 2 that did support the bailout, eventually, and IMO due to persusive measures, ARE the nominees.
Like I stated in the other post, I don't think "this is it" the "smoking gun", but all I was trying to do is show the connections to big business, reasons for possibly why Romney wasn't asked to be VP, or given the nomination.
I think I showed possible reasons why. At the very least, their flip flopping and change of hearts is evidence of some kind of manipulation, IMHO.
- 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 110 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 2:20 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 11:19 AM onifre has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 118 of 151 (508205)
05-11-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by dronestar
05-11-2009 8:47 AM


Re: Part 3
So what? They usually give to BOTH Democratic AND Republican parties but never to independent or socialist parties. Doesn't that overwhelmingly indicate they don't care which party wins? Do you think this makes for FAIR presidential candidate races? Or might things be . . . manipulated?
Who are they giving to?
They give their money to the House Armed Forces Committee and Senate Armed Forces Committee, mainly.
They also give their money to proven protectors of their interest: defense contracts.
The president isn't nearly as important, because the president doesn't control the purse strings. You saw what happened when Obama tried to reform the earmark process. Congress shot him down and we got a much weaker reform. It's mainly through earmarks and congressional control over the final budget that the defense contractors get their contracts.
It's not that they care whether a democrat or republican wins. It's that they care that someone who protects their interests win.
And here's the thing. They're not even the greatest contributors. Of course, they perhaps get the greatest bang for their buck, but in terms of donations last cycle, by sector, do you know who topped the list? Aside from the nebulous "other" (~168 million), it was the financial world, giving ~130.5 million to both Obama and McCain. So in terms of influence, defense (~2.9 million) gave about 6% of all the money donated by industry. The financial sector gave ~27% of that total. So if we're talking influence, we need to be looking at the undue influence of the financial sector and how it manipulates which candidate is favored. The defense sector is a bit-player (hell, retired people donated 44 million to Obama compared to the measly ~1.7 million he got from defense).
Presidential Candidates: Contributions by Sector, 2008 Cycle | OpenSecrets
Finally, there's another way of looking at this. Why do the donations favor the democrats this past cycle over all? Simply perhaps the industrial sector wants to have given money to those who will be in power and not be left out in the cold in the game of influence. Which suggests that far from actually determining who is favored, the sectors are reactive. Can you argue why the sectors are not reactive but instead proactive? Or is it likely a mix of both?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 8:47 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by dronestar, posted 05-11-2009 11:23 AM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2595 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 119 of 151 (508207)
05-11-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by onifre
05-11-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Mitt Romney - Auto Industry
I think I showed possible reasons why. At the very least, their flip flopping and change of hearts is evidence of some kind of manipulation, IMHO.
Or, you know, the blatantly obvious pandering to the electorate.
McCain and Clinton backed the gas-tax holiday last summer in a purely political move to gain support against Obama.
No. He just changed his mind, convinently AFTER he wins.
More appropriately, after he started badly losing to Obama. His entire economic message became slightly more leftist as his popularity declined in and after september. That's what I call a political calculation.
So far, all you're showing is nebulous links. Shall we try an exercise of Occam's Razor?
My proposition is that McCain flipped because he was losing support badly. I can show this with popularity polls (who are you going to vote for?). When McCain tacks rightward economically he loses support. When he tacks leftward he gains support.
Your proposition is that McCain flipped because he was prodded by auto industry influence. Who convinced him to switch? When did they convince him? Why did they convince him?
A fair question about my proposition would be why Obama switched. Well, let's do some reading. From your quote:
quote:
saying more concessions were needed from unions, creditors and others before they could be approved.
Ultimately, that's what happened. When all of these groups didn't, like in the case of Chrysler and very possibly soon Ford, they moved into bankruptcy proceedings instead of getting even more bailout funds. So did he really switch his position? Well, your source for his switch is from after he won. So political pandering wouldn't be able to explain it, since he has no need to. So perhaps auto influence could explain his switch. Of course, to answer that question you need to show that he actually switched. Your source doesn't really show this, since even in march Obama was open to more funds if certain conditions were met. The AP article does not mention such conditions, but it really doesn't say much of anything at all (not unusual for AP).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by onifre, posted 05-11-2009 10:41 AM onifre has not replied

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


Message 120 of 151 (508208)
05-11-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by kuresu
05-11-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Part 3
Thanks for the reply Kuresu.
It's not that they care whether a democrat or republican wins. It's that they care that someone who protects their interests win.
That is my main point I was trying to make.
The president isn't nearly as important, because the president doesn't control the purse strings.
In actuality that is completely true. In practice, much to my dismay, we've seen the last Bush administration not hampered at all by any threat of purse string restrictions. I remember I specifically criticised Pelosi for not using control of the purse strings in one of my posts (not this thread).
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 10:58 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2009 1:10 PM dronestar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024