Hope is the denial of reality
How come I have this feeling Romney can't win this one even though I don't particularly like Obama very much?
Congratulations America
The odds-makers are currently giving Obama a 69% chance of winning.
Hope is the denial of reality
So, Mitt, what do you really believe?
Too much about the Republican candidate for the presidency is far too mysterious
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864
Hmm, it's gone from being a 'referendum' to a 'choice'....which really means marketing and messaging, and million$ in (mostly negative) ads. All to court the small percent that's considered an Undecided or Swing voter. I was kinda surprised to hear the RNC considers the convention a way to "introduce" Mitt Romney, since "people" don't know much about him. Well, yeah, kinda hard to pin jello to the wall.
One other thing that's been bothering me, but I haven't really seen this addressed anywhere: Familial political dynasties. Adult children--and/or their spouses--of mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, presidents, vice presidents.....using their bloodline connections to pursue a "political career". Some of the surnames we know automatically, Kennedy and Bush in particular. But also Jackson, Daley, Cuomo, Quayle, Paul, etc.
Mitt Romney's father was governor of Michigan, a presidential candidate, and his mother was a senate candidate, too. Paul Ryan's wife is grand-daughter of an Oklahoma governor. These kinds of familial power connections, passed onto next generations, should be explained to the general voter. It should be part of the media's "vetting" process, so we can delve into candidate's motivations and intentions.
Do they simply want to gain power by expanding their "political dynasty", or do they want to use their political clout to empower others?
In any industry, in any form of government, its not unusual for a child to follow a relatives footsteps into the same career.
If a child of a Police Officer wanted to serve in the Police would you object?
If a child of a soldier wanted to serve in the military would you object?
If a child of a doctor wanted to become a doctor would you object?
If a child of a dentist wanted to become a dentist would you object?
If a child of a farmer wanted to become a farmer would you object?
If a child of a politician wanted to become a politician would you object?
I strongly suspect there are more third-generation farmers, policemen, soldiers etc, etc than there are third-generation politicians.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If a child of a drug dealer became a drug dealer, would you be surprised?
(ps I don't object to Romney's political family)
If a child of a parasite became a parasite, would you be surprised?
you seem to bu surprised/appalled by it
Just wanted to point out some people here said everybody has the same start in life, glad to see you agree parents/relatives have a big influence
I think you have me completely misunderstood. I expect it, which is why I wish to tackle it. Solving the problem of a parasite doesn't just resolve the one-off costs of them themselves but also potentially their would-be many parasitical spawn. Parasites do have a tendency to breed more and at a younger age too so the problem is a serious one to tackle, if you don't deal with an infestation of parasites then before long the whole edifice can rotyou seem to bu surprised/appalled by it
Always thought they do. Nor do I see it as either a problem, or even if it is a problem one that can be fixed.Just wanted to point out some people here said everybody has the same start in life, glad to see you agree parents/relatives have a big influence
I don't recall you being against Hillary's candidacy on this basis.One other thing that's been bothering me, but I haven't really seen this addressed anywhere: Familial political dynasties. Adult children--and/or their spouses--of mayors, governors, senators, congressmen, presidents, vice presidents.....using their bloodline connections to pursue a "political career". Some of the surnames we know automatically, Kennedy and Bush in particular. But also Jackson, Daley, Cuomo, Quayle, Paul, etc.
Mitt Romney's father was governor of Michigan, a presidential candidate, and his mother was a senate candidate, too. Paul Ryan's wife is grand-daughter of an Oklahoma governor. These kinds of familial power connections, passed onto next generations, should be explained to the general voter. It should be part of the media's "vetting" process, so we can delve into candidate's motivations and intentions.
Do they simply want to gain power by expanding their "political dynasty", or do they want to use their political clout to empower others?
Congratulations America
But they don't necessarily use their relatives' power like politicians do, with strategists and funders ready to pass on "the brand".
Wouldn't you object to people getting hired -- or accepted into military academies or elite medical schools because they had a relative who pulled some strings on their behalf -- aka nepotism? I thought you were all about meritocracy.
I wasn't a Hillary supporter. Looking back, maybe some was related to 'capitalizing' on her husband's presidency, as if leadership skills pass through osmosis, dunno. (She has proven to be competent as Sec. of State, though.) I'm also not fond of spouses "filling in" when the elected person dies in office, either. That's just weird.
Anyway, the notion of political dynasties bothers me, especially after Jeb Bush was mentioned as possible VP candidate, and others want him to run for POTUS in the future.
Ok let's test this logic.But they don't necessarily use their relatives' power like politicians do, with strategists and funders ready to pass on "the brand".
Wouldn't you object to people getting hired -- or accepted into military academies or elite medical schools because they had a relative who pulled some strings on their behalf -- aka nepotism? I thought you were all about meritocracy.
You're trying to claim that it's due to nepotism? So using your example in this thread Paul Ryan got to where he is as a Republican Congressman for Wisconsin not through his own actions (or the voters who've elected him 7 times) but nepotism/string pulling from his wife's grandfather?
His wife being someone he hadn't even met until his first term in Congress and his wife's uncle (not grandfather) being a former Democratic Senator and Governor of Oklahoma who not only campaigned for Obama but serves Obama currently.
Bit of a stretch that even from you it's getting into David Icke territories.
You're extrapolating beyond my original complaint.
Your complaint was nepotism and a cry of "we should be told". In an unsurprising twist all current examples were Republican including Paul Ryan whose wife's grandfather (actually uncle and a Democrat) was once a Governor for a different state without referencing the fact he hadn't even met his wife prior to being elected.
If that's nepotism ...
Last edited by RandBlade; 08-29-2012 at 06:04 AM.
My complaint was familial political dynasties. If you'd paid attention, most of those dynasty names were Democrats. Kennedy, Daley, Cuomo, Jackson. This isn't a partisan criticism, but a structural one. Yeah, the US binary two-party system that's fraught with campaign funding issues is vulnerable to all sorts of other issues. Nepotism and "branding a name" being just one.
I'm having trouble seeing how the two-party system and campaign funding issues are to blame for political dynasties. Help me connect those dots.
If anything, having more parties would make it easier for a few families to dominate each party. The reason being that nepotism is much easier to execute at a local level. Most of the dynasties, including many we never hear of, have power at the local or state level, not the national level. Patronage networks and loyalty are easier to create the closer you live to the people who support you want.
Hope is the denial of reality
I see a connection between organized and well funded political machinery, and the front-runner candidates. "Blame" doesn't mean much. I doubt if we could separate the chicken from the egg, at this point. But those binary choices that don't mean a damn thing in reality --- (R) or (D), liberal or conservative --- seem to move a lot of people. That's "branding" by name, or by party, but nothing more than a marketing tool.
On the inverse side, if our two-party system and campaign funding issues weren't so powerful, by now we'd have at least ONE third party that could compete with the two dominant ones. Especially since more people are choosing to self-identify as Independent or Unaffiliated.
That has nothing to do with political dynasties.
This also has nothing to do with political dynasties.On the inverse side, if our two-party system and campaign funding issues weren't so powerful, by now we'd have at least ONE third party that could compete with the two dominant ones. Especially since more people are choosing to self-identify as Independent or Unaffiliated.
I said the current ones you insulted were Republicans. Easy to make a gibe at historical Dems if that gives you a straw to attempt to attack both running GOPers with. A very flimsy and factually incorrect one in this instance.
What exactly do you propose? A candidate running for Congress declares the fact that in a few years time he'll meet, fall in love with and marry a stranger whose uncle works for the opposing party?
The American system has quite a few defences AGAINST nepotism, primaries and unlimited open funding being just two. Here in Europe where limited individuals rather than the entire American public control the purse strings you can find more.
I wouldn't know any Dutch political dynasties, though.
Do you guys think Romney will fight internet porn like the party wants him to??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No. I don't pay attention to the conventions *just a bunch of pageantry these days, almost never anything of importance* and so this is the first I've heard about it, but smut just isn't an issue for the Oval Office. That'll be something for Congress to do.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
the epic dishonesty of Romney’s campaign is finally prompting something of a debate among media types about whether what we’re seeing here is unprecedented — and how to appropriately respond to it.
This, just a few days after Romeny's camp made comments about fact checkers being useless.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
A) A campaign that cares more about votes than what some in the media think of them? How preposterous.
B) Fact-checking is far from an exact science, and many "fact-checkers" have a bias of their own, whether they acknowledge it or not.
C) Politics is sufficiently complex that "facts" matter far less than you think. It would certainly help if most fact-checkers themselves had a grasp on the complexity of the subject matter and not treat everything as a true or false proposition. Anyone running for political office would have to be a complete idiot to not agree with that Romney campaign quote.
Last edited by Loki; 08-30-2012 at 04:36 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Remember, it's not a lie....if you believe it.
C) The only one I've checked doesn't just return true/false (or mostly true, mostly false, etc) but also pretty long explanations, so there you go. Also, just because it isn't black or white doesn't mean you can't call out something that is a very dark shade of grey.
My point is that they make their determination on the basis of a single data point or a single study, and that's generally a really bad idea. I've seen numerous fact-checks that claimed something was true or a lie when it was clear that reality was far more complex. The only time I'd listen to these people if they dealt with something that was outrageously false.
Hope is the denial of reality
false, global, all-encompassing claim.
but wait, the very next sentence changes the conditions. Its not all the fact checkers, its just a random numerous amount of the ones you've seen. Good-ol' weasel loki.I've seen numerous fact-checks that claimed something was true or a lie
The quote was a response to the romney camp being called out on their false claims about Obama's work against welfare. Something nearly everyone has come out to claim is false (even those in his own party). So how much more outrageously false do we have to get?The only time I'd listen to these people if they dealt with something that was outrageously false.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote