|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2010 : 12:04:43
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/11/manchin-actually-puts-a-bullet-through-cap-and-trade-bill/
Manchin actually puts a bullet through Cap and Trade bill
By:
CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
(CNN) – It's not every day a politician literally puts a bullet through a piece of legislation.
But West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, the state's Democratic Senate nominee, does just that in a new ad that rails against several of President Barack Obama's policies.
"I'll take on Washington and this administration to get the federal government off of our backs and out of our pockets," says Manchin as he is seen loading a rifle.
The Democratic governor then adds he will "repeal the bad parts of Obamacare and "take dead aim at the Cap and Trade bill" before firing at what appears to be a copy of the Democratic-backed legislation itself.
The ad is the latest example of the anti-Obama strategy Democrats running in conservative regions across the company have embraced in hopes of eking out victories over Republican challengers.
Manchin faces businessman John Raese, who has repeatedly run ads suggesting the Democratic governor will be a rubberstamp for President Obama's agenda if he gets to Washington.
Obama himself has never been popular in the state, even among Democratic voters. He suffered one of his worst defeats there in the 2008 presidential primary, when he lost to Hillary Clinton by a 67-26 percent margin. |
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/11/2010 23:58:48
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2010 : 21:04:51 [Permalink]
|
| With friends like these.... |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 00:31:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
With friends like these....
|
Seriously, fuck them. Weed out the opportunists.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 04:18:09 [Permalink]
|
| Kick ass. Shooting stuff rules! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2010 : 04:50:08 [Permalink]
|
And deer season is right around the corner. Where I live now, I plan to hunt from my living room -- I have a clear, 60 yard shot into the woods right from my chair, and have been lightly baiting a spot at about 40 yards for a couple of weeks. Yeah, I know: I just ain't sporty enuff. So excommunicate me!
But unlike Gov. Joe, I ain't wastin' no ammunition on nonsense.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/12/2010 04:59:04 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 11:55:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by podcat
With friends like these....
|
Seriously, fuck them. Weed out the opportunists.
|
How is he being an opportunist? He's a quite popular second term governor. He's not changing positions -- he was always pro gun, cap and trade is generally considered negative for his state's economy. (He did change positions on healthcare though, at least partially.) It is Byrd's seat, sure, but someone had to run.
Obama is legitimately unpopular among the voters in the state, so his opponent's strategy of pushing him toward Obama was working (according to the polls, but I'll be astonished if Manchin actually loses).
Video of the ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/joe-manchin-ad-dead-aim_n_758457.html |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2010 : 20:54:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by podcat
With friends like these....
|
Seriously, fuck them. Weed out the opportunists.
|
How is he being an opportunist? He's a quite popular second term governor. He's not changing positions -- he was always pro gun, cap and trade is generally considered negative for his state's economy. (He did change positions on healthcare though, at least partially.) It is Byrd's seat, sure, but someone had to run.
Obama is legitimately unpopular among the voters in the state, so his opponent's strategy of pushing him toward Obama was working (according to the polls, but I'll be astonished if Manchin actually loses).
Video of the ad: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/joe-manchin-ad-dead-aim_n_758457.html
|
He is an opportunist because he says he is a democrat only for political advantage. There are several of them. Republicans have a name for their fake repubs, RINO (republican in name only). Dems should start calling these douchebags DINOs. The ones dems have in the senate now are the reason why the GOP filibuster of all legislation is working.
That filibuster, while off topic, is an amazing example of shameless hypocrisy... repubs were crying like little girls when dems filibustered a handful of Bush's judge nominations, going so far as threatening to delete the filibuster from the senate rules. Now they refuse to let anything come up for a vote!
...
..... and the DINOs who vote with them on those votes should all be drummed the fuck out. Fucking opportunists.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 00:03:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He is an opportunist because he says he is a democrat only for political advantage. There are several of them. Republicans have a name for their fake repubs, RINO (republican in name only). Dems should start calling these douchebags DINOs. The ones dems have in the senate now are the reason why the GOP filibuster of all legislation is working. |
Why would you purposely polarize politics? Not that many people, when voting their conscience, fall entirely into line with a party. The degree to which their votes suggest they do is more troubling than positive to me. This isn't what we need. As if the polarizing forces of primary elections don't make it hard enough for a centrist to win.
This RINO nonsense is just a way to control candidates by a party. Why is this a good thing? I don't see that anyone owes any loyalty to a party, but should be true rather to his or her own conscience. The opposite can be plenty opportunistic -- go fully with the party line, get party funding for your race to improve your chances of acquiring power.
This guy has been a Democrat for easily 20 years. The NRA has support of 90% of his constituents (as governor), and it's not surprised if he supports gun rights as well. Same for cap and trade. I don't agree with his opposition to cap and trade and I'm not a fan of Manchin -- I wish he tried to divert the economy from coal as much as possible over his past 6 odd years in office instead of apparently going down with the ship. But you're suggest he's lacking in integrity of position for political gain based solely on the fact that he is not supporting the party line. Maybe if you had an actual argument for that claim, I could be more receptive.
| That filibuster, while off topic, is an amazing example of shameless hypocrisy... repubs were crying like little girls when dems filibustered a handful of Bush's judge nominations, going so far as threatening to delete the filibuster from the senate rules. Now they refuse to let anything come up for a vote! |
Both sides bitch when the other side filibusters. Similarly, either side in power reacts the same to bad unemployment reports ("hey, we beat our projections" or "hey, we had more job losses, but the rate at which we lost jobs was reduced!" -- both of these were peddled last week and 3 years ago by the respective sides.) Don't use nonsense like that to justify the claim that (only) Republicans are hypocrites.
| and the DINOs who vote with them on those votes should all be drummed the fuck out. Fucking opportunists. |
Sounding like the left version of Sarah Palin, awesome. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/13/2010 00:23:48 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 00:20:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't see that anyone owes any loyalty to a party, but should be true rather to his or her own conscience. |
You think politicians have consciences? 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 00:24:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't see that anyone owes any loyalty to a party, but should be true rather to his or her own conscience. |
You think politicians have consciences?
|
They do, just little integrity to follow it. Perhaps if there wasn't such an incentive to go with the flow, it would happen more. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 21:06:29 [Permalink]
|
| Sounding like the left version of Sarah Palin, awesome. |
I refudiate your comparison!
But seriously, the next time you call me a fucking retarded white trash moron, I might take offense.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 09:52:55 [Permalink]
|
But seriously, isn't the point of political parties something along the lines of getting a group of like minded people together to accomplish common goals?
Palin is right, at least in so far as thinking (I use that term loosely in regard to her) that people who directly oppose and work against the common party goals should be kicked out of the party.
When people inside your own party work against the interest of the majority of the party then they don't really have a place. I'm not saying that political parties shouldn't be as inclusive as possible, just that (I'll use DADT as an example) if you oppose ending DADT and you vote with the opposition to prevent it's repeal, then you need to go. If you actively block climate legislation because you have sold out to energy special interests, you need to go. And so on.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2010 : 20:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
But seriously, isn't the point of political parties something along the lines of getting a group of like minded people together to accomplish common goals? |
Yes, but there is not a huge faction of people who agree on everything, and it certainly doesn't distribute itself uniformly across the country. For example, there is a large group that agrees with a, b, but not c; a large group that agrees with a, c, but not b; a large group that agrees with b, c, but not a. And these do not always fit party lines.
There's also the issue of differences in trends in support in different regions and states, which is a huge factor in the example in particular (as Democrats in his state do mostly support the things Manchin does -- a "true" Democrat by your criteria has extremely little chance of winning there).
Suppose we have a candidate who pulls positions from both sides. Let's say he (or she, anywhere I say "he") doesn't have enough of his own money or reputation to run as an independent (this is essentially required to win if you look at which independents have won in recent history -- Lieberman, Bloomberg, etc). Suppose he chooses the Republican party.
The candidate is going to struggle to get party funding in the primary and he's going to get hammered by party hacks (which tend to be highly represented in media), which is going to make it hard to win in the primary.
This candidate will have to (1) stick with his positions undeterred or (2) thump his chest in defense of his party loyalty. If he chooses (1), he's really going to struggle to get campaign funding, often a kiss of death. If he chooses (2) and wins the primary, the opponent is going to have lots of leverage with his sound bites from the primary to push him right and and try to marginalize his support in the middle.
(This holds in areas with high voter turnout only -- otherwise, it's a battle for bases of parties and it would have been hard for him to win the primary anyway, as a centrist.)
| Palin is right, at least in so far as thinking (I use that term loosely in regard to her) that people who directly oppose and work against the common party goals should be kicked out of the party. |
They already are whenever parties can manage to force them out without losing elections. They will certainly not trade an out-of-the-norm party member for a member of the opposition party, however.
| When people inside your own party work against the interest of the majority of the party then they don't really have a place. |
Again, public opinion on quite a lot of things is varied and non-uniformly distributed. Democrats in West Virginia support gun rights. A candidate who does not support that will not likely win. Democrats in West Virginia also support coal mining -- and, therefore, against measures that hurt the industry (which cap and trade certainly does). If some candidate disagreeing with all of that won, he necessarily would not be representing his constituents correctly, which I certainly don't think is desirable. I would like my positions to be reflecting in lawmaking, but I don't want a candidate to misrepresent people toward that end.
| I'm not saying that political parties shouldn't be as inclusive as possible, just that (I'll use DADT as an example) if you oppose ending DADT and you vote with the opposition to prevent it's repeal, then you need to go. |
When you go into the all-or-nothing mode, you no longer have the mass of support that justifies the use of party power. Party members are similar minded in some regard (and different regards for different sets of members), but not identically minded.
| If you actively block climate legislation because you have sold out to energy special interests, you need to go. And so on. |
Doing something "because you sold out to special interests" is not the same thing. That has very little to do with a party. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2010 : 00:41:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, I also happen to think we should make political parties illegal, or at the least we should somehow remove their control over elections, like doing away with primaries and then forcing runoff elections until one person gets 50% +1 vote.
And I'm not talking about public opinion here. I really don't give a crap if a bunch of ignorant retards in Virginia don't think global warming is real. Any politician who panders for votes by sucking up to people who deny reality is harming everyone, and they need to go away regardless of political party affiliation.
Back to parties- When you have a few people who are working against the broader goals of the party, climate change and civil rights (DADT as an example), and they do so without regard for evidence, then they are harming everyone. Their constituents can go fuck off. Politicians should be working to inform their constituents about reality, convince them that climate change is real and so on. Instead they pander to the most ignorant among us, and I'm pretty damn tired of it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2010 : 13:31:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Well, I also happen to think we should make political parties illegal, or at the least we should somehow remove their control over elections, like doing away with primaries and then forcing runoff elections until one person gets 50% +1 vote. |
Runoff elections have their problems as well, even when there is high voter turnout (which we really don't, particularly outside presidential election years).
Suppose we have candidates A, B, and C. In terms of political orientation, suppose A is left, B is center, and C is right (of course, a simplified example). Suppose 40% support A, 20% support B, 40% support C. In the first round, B is going to get eliminated, and A or C is going to win.
Then we have 40% satisfied, 20% semi-satisfied, and 40% dissatisfied.
If B had won, we'd have 80% semi-satisfied and 20% satisfied. Which one is better? B sounds better to me, but I don't know.
Do you think this is better than instant-runoff balloting (where voters rank however many candidates they want)? It would seem in that example, we'd get (roughly)
40% saying A = #1, B = #2, C = #3
20% saying B = #1, B/C = #2/#3 (50/50 split)
40% saying C = #1, B = #2, A = #3
Say we give 3 points for #1, 2 for #2, 1 for #3, so here, our scores would be:
Candidate A: 40*3 + 10*2 + 10*1 + 40*1 = 190
Candidate B: 20*3 + 40*2 + 40*2 = 240 <- B wins
Candidate C: 40*3 + 10*2 + 10*1 + 40*1 = 190
Arrow's impossibility theorem is pretty interesting on the topic. It's a tough problem to solve. There can definitely be similarly paradoxical examples of the other being seemingly better. I guess it's just a matter of deciding which possible evil is worse or more likely, or finding something entirely different.
| And I'm not talking about public opinion here. I really don't give a crap if a bunch of ignorant retards in Virginia don't think global warming is real. Any politician who panders for votes by sucking up to people who deny reality is harming everyone, and they need to go away regardless of political party affiliation. |
It's not a matter of whether global warming is real (and it's not Virginia for that matter). No one is campaigning that it's not real. The problem is that his state's economy is highly dependent on coal.
Global warming is actually not much of an issue at all here because Manchin is in fact the greener candidate. When the issue comes up, Manchin usually says he's hoping current research projects come up with some cleaner methods of using coal, acknowledging current methods are harmful to the environment. Sure, if he didn't act so shortsightedly as a governor, he possibly would have tried to divert the economy away from that industry.
| Back to parties- When you have a few people who are working against the broader goals of the party, climate change and civil rights (DADT as an example), and they do so without regard for evidence, then they are harming everyone. |
Sure, look at the evidence to show climate change is real. Although pragmatic judgments regarding what to do about it is much less clear, like:
-how harmful it is to hold out for new solutions in old industries
-how much harm killing an industry does
-how much harm could be caused by mass unemployment
-how long we should delay the destruction of an industry to give more time to implement alternate industries
These are the actual issues, not whether climate change is real, at least in this election in particular.
However, what "evidence" can there be to suggest DADT is okay or not okay?
| Their constituents can go fuck off. Politicians should be working to inform their constituents about reality, convince them that climate change is real and so on. Instead they pander to the most ignorant among us, and I'm pretty damn tired of it. |
Not an issue, and essentially a straw man. It's a matter of economics (and bad management of economics...) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2010 : 17:36:22 [Permalink]
|
However, what "evidence" can there be to suggest DADT is okay or not okay?
|
I see it as a civil rights issue. Discrimination against any group violates the basic founding principles. All are equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, don't they? But there is evidence to suggest that DADT is harmful to our military preparedness. At the outset of the invasion of Iraq we had a very small number of Arab linguists, and most of them were gay and then discharged under DADT. That is not OK.
As for the runoff election thing, I am not opposed to the ranking system for voting either. Anything that diminishes the power of political parties to dominate elections.
I'll get back to this in a bit.... work calling... could be a long night!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
More Candidates Shooting Things!
