PUB DISCUSSION Serious questions.....

[pan6467]

Ok, this whole debate over the nominees and their VP's let's turn things around a little.... answer honestly.... don't bullshit or make excuses just answer, give your OPINION only on the scenarios given.

First: Let's say a presidential nominee had as his "spiritual leader" a known white supremacist reverend, one who went with David Dukes and some Neo Nazi leaders to South Africa in the 80's to show support for Apartheid. This nominee's "spiritual leader" also blames the black, gays, etc for 9/11. Then we find out he has close ties and business dealings with the Gambino family, he served on a board with some ultra right religious nuts that bombed abortion clinics? Pretend this man is a GOP..... what would you GOP voters think?

What would you say about that man? What would you say about the party that supported him?

Next: what would you think about a man that preaches change and stirring up things but yet votes 99% of the time with his party's Senatorial majority Leader, over 95% of the time with his party's extreme side? He has been called by others in the Senate even those in his own party, as being ultra partisan.

Pretend this man is a GOP, what would you think of him? How would you react to his saying "I am going to change how things are done."

Now: What about a candidate that creates news by stating he is more moderate and dislikes his party's sitting president's policies, he talks of distancing himself from this very disliked president.... yet votes 90% with that president's policies?

This time it's a Dem. How would you GOPers look at this guy? How would you Dems look at him?

Or how about this: the nominee of a party criticizes the other for his inexperience but takes as his VP someone just as inexperienced in foreign policy but more experienced in budget management?

The point is take all the "dirt and scandals" surrounding the candidates and reverse them so that you can see how the other side is viewing YOUR candidate.

I have and to be honest, I don't see how either candidate truly won their respective party's nomination.

It boggles my mind how either of these men ever got taken seriously.

So go ahead answer the scenarios AS PUT FORTH. Just answer honestly.... put in your own scenarios that you may think of.

Try to see the whole picture not just the part you want to focus on.

[scout]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I have and to be honest, I don't see how either candidate truly won their respective party's nomination.

It boggles my mind how either of these men ever got taken seriously.
.

Exactly my thoughts. In fact it's been the same story the last three presidential elections. It's like having to choose between dumb and dumber with the most difficult task being that of deciding which is which.

[dc_dux]

pan....you want honesty?

I honestly had a hard time getting past your "First" premise because it is based on such a distortion of the facts to the extreme that I dont see the value of discussion.

If you want an honest serioius discussion.....start with honest scenarios that more accurately reflect reality.

Based on all of the above, if I were sitting at a table in a pub and someone started a conversation like that, I honestly would probably get up and walk away laughing and look for a more stimulating and less emotional discussion.

[roachboy]

i would say that you are operating with a significant problem of scaling.
the television manufactured wright "scandal" composed of arbitrary sound-bytes strung together as if they represented a social-historical reality that unfolded over 20 years is juxtaposed with a senate voting record as if these were equivalent at the level of status and so were equivalent at the register of meaning.
i would say that if you cannot tell these registers of information apart, then you probably are not up for making judgments, not even simple ones.

i would wonder how you function in the world without bumping into things: lint and furniture would be the same size for you, moving across the living room an epic challenge.

but in a 3-d pub, i would make a decision about whether this was a conversation worth having based on any number of criteria, all of which would drop to the side of the sound-byte version of that conversation presented in the op: whether the seat was good, whether i could look out the window, whether you seemed vaguely amusing despite the fact that you cannot distinguish levels of information one from the other.


context matters.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....you want honesty?

I honestly had a hard time getting past your "First" premise because it is based on such a distortion of the facts to the extreme that I dont see the value of discussion.

If you want an honest serioius discussion.....start with honest scenarios that more accurately reflect reality.

That's his point ... at least one ... that it's difficult for partisans to see the picture objectively. I'm an independent and find Pan's questions to be very honest and reasonably accurate across the board. Neither of these clowns are qualified for the office of the presidency, but their parties absolutely deserve them as their representatives. At least McCain has a history of being a panderer, so we knew what to expect from him. Obama is a manufactured personality without depth or experience ... this will only become more painfully clear as the election heats up in the final stretch.

[dc_dux]

otto....I know I have a dog in this fight and my objectivity may be questioned.

But when I see a "first" scenario that is purported to be a mirror of reality, but in fact, is a gross distortion...I call it like I see it.

Consider the source and the "objectivity" brought to that first bizarre scenario....consorting with neo-nazi leaders, dealings with the mafia....what happened to the 20+ years of that spiritual leader's positive and uplifting contributions to his community or the $millions of funding from his church to support social programs in the community and around the country?

gimme a fucking break!

[roachboy]

it's really quite funny to read your implied claim, otto, that it is "partisan" NOT to see anything of consequence in the television-generated non-event that is the "wright thing"---so by implication, it follows that "seeing" it is non-partisan---this despite the self-evident problems with the nature of the "object" (the "wright thing" as pure product of editing and repetition on television) and its status. so what you're arguing in effect is that the "non-partisan" position to take regarding the presidential election is to abandon all rational sense of scale.

it's particularly funny to see this curious argument turned in the end to a critique of obama as manufactured.

that you repeat the problem with your own argument in the attempt to make that argument operational makes me wonder what you think of self-mockery and how you feel about doing it.

either way, is this is how you're participating in the elections?

funny stuff.

[filtherton]

If we were in a pub right now, I might take the opportunity to bum a smoke from someone and step outside. Which would be my nonconfrontational way of saying "I know they both suck, but I'm still voting for the one whose suckiness better aligns with how I would like the world to suck and I'm not particularly interested in different framing maneuvers with respect to their suckiness."

[flstf]

Originally Posted by pan6467

The point is take all the "dirt and scandals" surrounding the candidates and reverse them so that you can see how the other side is viewing YOUR candidate.

Well the easy answer is one wouldn't be inclined to vote for either one. So where does that leave us? What criteria does one use to select one over the other?

Both parties seem intent to position their candidate as a change agent. It has been Obama's theme from the beginning and McCain's recent VP choice is an effort to steal his thunder (plus get Hillary fanatics).

I don't think that either candidate will result in much real change but a vote for the Republican is essentailly a vote for no change unless one is hoping for a Palin Presidency in 2012 or sooner and probably more influence by the religious right.

You know my position is usually to vote for "none of the above" but this time I think I'll go for Obama. The change is more perception than reality but it is probably time to let the Democrats have the white house for a while and I think a black president would be good for a number of social reasons.

[Seaver]

I honestly have no faith in Obama's presidency. I don't see him changing anything, much like I predicted Pelosi's promise to end Christmas Tree'ing in the Senate (it actually increased under her). I see him as doing anything to make it. This includes paying homage to racists, radicals, and those who admitted bombing government building, in order to make it into the government seat. I don't see him as anything more than the same.

McCain I used to like, but is now pandering to the Evangelicals he used to openly mock. He is a politician, with some poor legislative choices.... but has proven his desire to change big government and the abuses of big money's influence. I'm not expecting the second coming of Reagan, but I certainly see him as the better choice of the two.

it's really quite funny to read your implied claim, otto, that it is "partisan" NOT to see anything of consequence in the television-generated non-event that is the "wright thing"---so by implication, it follows that "seeing" it is non-partisan---this despite the self-evident problems with the nature of the "object" (the "wright thing" as pure product of editing and repetition on television) and its status. so what you're arguing in effect is that the "non-partisan" position to take regarding the presidential election is to abandon all rational sense of scale.

I find quite funny is the same people who despise the conservatives for pandering to Jerry Falwell and claim it was legitimate to argue it 4 years ago are the ones now who are saying it is irrelevant. I feel that I'm one of the only ones who hated it back then and hate it now.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm not expecting the second coming of Reagan...

Thats one good point in McCain's favor!

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

otto....I know I have a dog in this fight and my objectivity may be questioned.

But when I see a "first" scenario that is purported to be a mirror of reality, but in fact, is a gross distortion...I call it like I see it.

Consider the source and the "objectivity" brought to that first bizarre scenario....consorting with neo-nazi leaders, dealings with the mafia....what happened to the 20+ years of that spiritual leader's positive and uplifting contributions to his community or the of funding from his church to support social programs in the community and around the country?

gimme a fucking break!

Ah but that scenario is what people see only reversed. Like it or not, THAT is what has been portrayed and is in people's minds.

As are all the other scenarios and more.

The perceived truth is what the candidate must run against, not the truth. What was the truth on Kerry? Didn't really matter, it was what the perception was and how well that was handled that hurt him.

And again if you don't like the thread there is no law that says you have to post in it or even read it, if you find it so offensive.

I was just curious if theses "scandals", "truths", hypocrisies, and so on were on the other candidate how people would react.

You seem stuck on the first one DC..... so let's look at it..... Did Wright go to Libya in the 80's when Libya was considered a terrorist country? How is this different than a GOP candidate having as his "spiritual leader a man who went to South Africa in the 80's showing support for Apartheid?

Has Obama had business dealings with a known racketeer named Rezko? How is this different than a GOP candidate having business dealings with the Gambino family?

Does Obama's church support and work with Louis Farrakhan the leader of what some believe to be a truly radical racist group called the Nation of Islam? How is his different than a GOP candidate's church being associated wih a Neo Nazi group?

Friends with Bill Ayers,who bombed military and government buildings. How is this different than a GOP candidate being associated with a person that blew up abortion clinics?

That is what we have been fed. Now you reverse it and see what the other side sees. Then argue how you can support that man.

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's really quite funny to read your implied claim, otto, that it is "partisan" NOT to see anything of consequence in the television-generated non-event that is the "wright thing"---so by implication, it follows that "seeing" it is non-partisan---this despite the self-evident problems with the nature of the "object" (the "wright thing" as pure product of editing and repetition on television) and its status. so what you're arguing in effect is that the "non-partisan" position to take regarding the presidential election is to abandon all rational sense of scale.

it's particularly funny to see this curious argument turned in the end to a critique of obama as manufactured.

that you repeat the problem with your own argument in the attempt to make that argument operational makes me wonder what you think of self-mockery and how you feel about doing it.

either way, is this is how you're participating in the elections?

funny stuff.

roachie - I believe your response only further validates my point, Your reaction to Pan's "spiritual leader" reference is a perfect example of willful partisan hypocrisy. It happens all the time with ideological herd mentality.

Is Obama being manufactured worse than calling McCain a panderer? What is your complaint?

At this stage in the game, my participation in the election is to vote.

[roachboy]

but pan, you seem to be under the impression that there is something to this wright phantasm. you assume it when you talk about reversibility, as if your projected object would remain intact as it were rotated from one viewpoint to another. what you do not consider is to my mind obvious: that rotating this wright phantasm to another viewpoint dissolves it. there is no there there. there is nothing.

from this the obvious conclusion: you were predisposed to dislike obama as a signifier and you latched onto the right wright phantasm as an excuse and you are fixed on it because of the function that it serves for you. seemingly incapable to admitting of any ricketiness in the phantasm, presumably because of the functions it serves for you, you persist in trying to fashion little scenarios in the context of which you concede the status of your construct "the wright thing" in order to play the game at all.



just saying.


otto: or we *could* actually discuss issues--the empirical situation in which the united states finds itself, what candidates propose to do or not do to address them--maybe treat this pathetic election as if it were serious, as if it were about serious choices (which it is) instead of about lint moving in little circles blown one place to another by 24/7 "news" channels and the talking head class that helps it sell vital advertising to folk like you.

this is horseshit, this approach to politics.
if you take horseshit, put it on a stick, and spin it, its still horseshit.
there are no viable "partisan" disagreements about horseshit spinning on a stick--it is what it is.
there is no "herd mentality"---which is i assume a meme used to dismiss the implied criticism in all this, which can be boiled down to "this is horseshit spinning on a stick."
unless you see in the refusal to acknowledge that this is, in fact, horseshit on a stick (so it can be turned) something of a herd mentality--in which case maybe we have something to talk about.
but short of that, this is a waste of time.

i'm going to grab my hat and get up out of here.
i don't see anything good coming from staying in this place.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah but that scenario is what people see only reversed. Like it or not, THAT is what has been portrayed and is in people's minds.

As are all the other scenarios and more.

The perceived truth is what the candidate must run against, not the truth. What was the truth on Kerry? Didn't really matter, it was what the perception was and how well that was handled that hurt him.

And again if you don't like the thread there is no law that says you have to post in it or even read it, if you find it so offensive.

I was just curious if theses "scandals", "truths", hypocrisies, and so on were on the other candidate how people would react.

You seem stuck on the first one DC..... so let's look at it..... Did Wright go to Libya in the 80's when Libya was considered a terrorist country? How is this different than a GOP candidate having as his "spiritual leader a man who went to South Africa in the 80's showing support for Apartheid?

Has Obama had business dealings with a known racketeer named Rezko? How is this different than a GOP candidate having business dealings with the Gambino family?

Does Obama's church support and work with Louis Farrakhan the leader of what some believe to be a truly radical racist group called the Nation of Islam? How is his different than a GOP candidate's church being associated wih a Neo Nazi group?

Friends with Bill Ayers,who bombed military and government buildings. How is this different than a GOP candidate being associated with a person that blew up abortion clinics?

That is what we have been fed. Now you reverse it and see what the other side sees. Then argue how you can support that man.

pan....IMO, you have an obsession with Obama.

Take the Resko "scandal" in which Obama had no business dealings (he took campaign contributions) and did nothing illegal....but that you bring up again and again.

So where is the Keating Five scandal? Charles Keating, a convicted racketeer ...and McCain friend behind the S&L scandal that cost the taxpayers $several billions. (How much did Resko cost the taxpayers?) McCain, while not charged with any crime (same as Obama) intervened with fedleral investigators on Keating's behalf, took $several hundred thousand in campaign contributions from Keating....McCain's wife and father had a sweetheart development deal with Keating on a shopping center in Phoenix.

IMO...selective outrage on your part based on your bias, not objectivity.

The rest, IMO, is based on ignorance and intolerance.....some sort of "guilt by association" in order to support your outrage.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by roachboy

but pan, you seem to be under the impression that there is something to this wright phantasm. you assume it when you talk about reversibility, as if your projected object would remain intact as it were rotated from one viewpoint to another. what you do not consider is to my mind obvious: that rotating this wright phantasm to another viewpoint dissolves it. there is no there there. there is nothing.

from this the obvious conclusion: you were predisposed to dislike obama as a signifier and you latched onto the right wright phantasm as an excuse and you are fixed on it because of the function that it serves for you. seemingly incapable to admitting of any ricketiness in the phantasm, presumably because of the functions it serves for you, you persist in trying to fashion little scenarios in the context of which you concede the status of your construct "the wright thing" in order to play the game at all.



just saying.

No, because I can honestly say there are other reasons as noted above I do not like either candidate. I don't have to "latch onto Rev. Wright" to dislike Obama, TRUST ME on that one.

But I find it funny that people are willing to attack the question and just not answer the hypothetical put forth.

True or not, it is what is perceived that sticks in people's minds and while many may not voice it, I am sure these perceptions are what some people have. I just flipped them to the other candidate and asked what would you think if this was the dirt surrounding the other candidate.

And again, it becomes very apparent that people would rather attack and yell and scream and get pissy than to truly sit back, and think about what their reaction would be to these perceptions.

And again, if you find that these questions are biased or one sided put forth your scenarios, your perceptions.....

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I don't have to "latch onto Rev. Wright" to dislike Obama, .

pan...so why did you feel a need to resurrect it in your hypothetical? It hasnt been a discussion on the campaign trail for months....probably since several Republican House members in historic Republican districts lost in special elections and featured the Obama/Wright "connection" prominently in their failed ads.

And the next time you bring up Resko (I have no doubt you will again)....think Keating and $3 bilion dollar cost to the taxpayers.
-----Added 1/9/2008 at 02 : 01 : 16-----
I dont question the fact that you dislike both.

What I have trouble with is what I would characterize as your over-the-top disdain for Obama....stretching his "associations" as far as you can to make someone stick..at least in your own mind.

That's your choice..and I dont doubt that you see it as being reasonable and rational...but dont expect everyone to see it that way or to see it as objective.

[roachboy]

pan---no-one is particularly upset.
it just happens that not all points of departure are equivalent. not even in a pub.

and so you know, i haven't a particular attachment to obama.

what disturbs--in the sense of makes me scratch my head and wonder what the hell is going on out there in the land---in the context of this parlor game is what i see as a wholesale loss of perspective which is built into your scenario and to the rules of the game, which require that a player inside the game take that scenario seriously in order to play. so what i see you doing is attempting to legitimate that loss of perspective by constructing a game in which you would impose it on others. not everyone is willing to play this kind of game, not even in a pub.

but it is a nice day outside here in tiny town and there are other things to be done and perhaps i shall go do them and will stop pointing out the obvious problems with the game.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....IMO, you have an obsession with Obama.

Take the Resko "scandal" in which Obama did nothing illegal....but that you bring up again and again.

Wright I bring up because it does bother me. Rezko, do a search... I really don't think I have brought him up hardly ever if ever. I may have maybe 3-4 posts with his name.

So where is the Keating Five scandal? Charles Keating, a convicted racketeer ...and McCain friend behind the S&L scandal that cost the taxpayers billions. (How much did Resko cost the taxpayers?) McCain, while not charged with any crime (same as Obama) intervened with fedleral investigators on Keating's behalf, took hundred thousand in campaign contributions from Keating....McCain's wife and father had a sweetheart development deal with Keating on a shopping center in Phoenix.

So reverse it. I also did not account for Biden's son being hired as a lobbyist. Or some of Biden's percieved scandals.

McCain in the Keating 5 was cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment. By all means turn it around and make it a scenario.

IMO...selective outrage on your part based on your bias, not objectivity.

See, I'm biased because I am a Democrat. I know and read more about Dems that I do Republicans because I never thought I would vote for one, especially for president. I know Voinivich, like Voinivich because he is a hometown boy..... But I probably know more about Sherrod Brown because he is THE MAN. I know more about Strickland in his short period of time than I knew about Taft during his whole term.... except for the corruption and scandals in Taft's office.

I'm biased because I am appalled that the party I love and have supported can nominate such a man. 20 years ago the great Gary Hart lost everything because he challenged the press and they found him with Donna Rice. Right or wrong, that scandal cost him the nomination.

20 years ago Dukakis lost everything due to perceptions of 1 picture in a tank and Willie Horton.

28 years ago, Ted Kennedy was pulled because of perceptions over Chappaquidick.

16 - 8 years ago Clinton could not achieve anything because of perceived scandals and it tied up government because one party and some in his own wanted to destroy him.

Yet, here we are when there are far worse perceptions and the party vehemently defends all these scandals that come up on this man. And the only explanation I can come up with is because he is black. There are far better black men out there that could be leaders, why this one? It makes no sense to me.

This to me is selling out the party and values I have put into this party.

The rest, IMO, is based on ignorance and intolerance.....some sort of "guilt by association" in order to support your outrage.

Then why post in this thread? If all you can do is point out what is wrong and the bias then why post? If you cannot reverse the situations and perceptions then why post?

Then when I look to the GOP nominee, I see an old man trying to fulfill his dream. However, I am not as emotionally tied to that party so I can look at who they put up, not knowing that much about the man and decide to support him..... because the party I loved, worked for and had supported since I was old enough to understand politics and issues has sold me out. They have sold out my ideals, my principles, my beliefs and my values to the country I LOVE to nominate someone who I just can't stomach.

So I turned it around, I wanted to see how GOPer's would support a man their party nominated that would have the same perceptions.

Funny thing is, I don't see the GOP ever nominating someone like that.

[Seaver]

So I turned it around, I wanted to see how GOPer's would support a man their party nominated that would have the same perceptions.

Funny thing is, I don't see the GOP ever nominating someone like that.

Most of us feel like the Dem's in 04. We're not voting FOR our candidate... we're voting AGAINST the other guy.

[ratbastid]

This question boils down to:

if pan's inflexibly brutal view of candidate A were applied to candidate B, how would you feel about candidate B?

The sign of mature thinking is the ability to hold what one believes to be true as a belief, distinct from the truth. There's a shocking lack of that around here.

[Willravel]

Jews brought the holocaust on themselves. Katrina was god punishing gays and sinners. Catholicism is a cult. The US government should hasten Judgment Day.

These aren't the vocal beliefs of Reverend Wright, the pastor that Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced. These are the very vocal beliefs of Reverend Hagee, pastor of John McCain for many years. McCain has yet to denounce Hagee, too. Hagee introduced McCain at the South Carolina campaign, he's still on McCain's website (last I saw), and McCain recently said about Hagee, "And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel." Can you imagine if Obama had said, "I am very proud of Minister Louis Farrakhan's spiritual leadership to thousands of people..."?

Do I care? Not one little bit. Phelps, Hagee, Robertson... the GOP has connections to plenty of extremist, hateful preachers. I've never seen it have a direct effect on policy, so I don't care. When Robertson demanded the assassination Hugo Chavez, he wasn't assassinated. Hagee's hatred towards Catholics hasn't stopped GOP candidates from trying to get the Catholic vote, including McCain. I've never seen any evidence that pastors hold direct control over current congregants, let alone former congregants.

The idea that Obama is someone controlled or influenced by Wright is not based in evidence, reason, or precedence. It cannot even be reflected in similar situations in the Republican party. This should be all the argument one might need to dispel the idea that Wright is someone any kind of problem when it comes to supporting Obama, but it won't. Entrenchment is dangerous.

[Psycho Dad]

Originally Posted by filtherton

If we were in a pub right now, I might take the opportunity to bum a smoke from someone and step outside. Which would be my nonconfrontational way of saying "I know they both suck, but I'm still voting for the one whose suckiness better aligns with how I would like the world to suck and I'm not particularly interested in different framing maneuvers with respect to their suckiness."

I less than totally agree. Smoking is bad. Other than that...