The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Even the most wild conspiracy theories from 2002 don't make any f***ing sense anymore.

 

You see these douchebags on TV and they talk about the next thing (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.) like nothing ever happened.

 

The Defense Department had directed employees there and in State in late 2001 to buy up and read copies of some lady's conspiracy book that asserted Saddam was behind the first WTC bombings.

 

I liked this quote:

 

Whatever his flaws (and he's almost all flaw), Richard Cohen always managed to write some good prose. And his "only A Fool-Or, Possibly, A Frenchman-Could Conclude Otherwise," line did perfectly capture a moment. It was a moment of horror and stupidity, a moment when a nation gone mad was determined to rain death and chaos upon the population of another country because Benghazi (makes as much sense as any reason then), but he expressed it perfectly. So that's something.

 

this post covers Wolfowitz's latest interview on CNN and refernces the conspiracy theorist they relied on to bolster their Saddam-AQ links.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/the...-wolfowitz.html

 

It's all still crazy.

[StrangeSox]

Oh Im sorry, you wanted to create rules where you could only talk about a very specific subject and then not have to answer questions about other subjects? That seems really fair.

 

Look at the post above, you said that one side was "anti-democratic", I merely said that both sides are anti-democratic, and acting like only 1 side tries to get an advantage is just blatantly misleading.

 

Yeah, notice how I was talking about a specific thing there? Notice how I never said "Democrats never do anything shady" or anything like that? Not every single topic needs to have "both sides!" brought into it, especially when a certain topic is very clearly one-sided.

 

So you are right, after I discussed your specific case and argued why I disagree with voter ID, I actually came up with other solutions to try and solve the problem.

 

This is, again, assuming that in-person voter fraud is actually a problem that needs to be solved.

 

You dont like my solutions because they could potentially prevent a member of your side from voting, thus you keep trying to paint me into a corner about an issue Ive already clearly discussed. If you dont have the ability to defend your overall position, that is fine, just admit that you are arguing for your side and trying to get an advantage.

 

I don't like any solutions that potentially disenfranchise a legitimate voter in an attempt to solve a problem that isn't real. If you don't have the ability to support the actual existence of the problem at any significant level and to analyze your own proposals for potential impacts, just admit that you're throwing s*** at the wall.

 

There's no inherent advantage in non-ID policies unless you bizarrely assume that Democrats are more likely to commit in-person fraud than Republicans. Without that assumption, then your claim that I'm arguing for an advantage (beyond the 'advantage' of franchising legitimate voters) is simply bulls***.

 

Its what most people do. But dont act magnanimous about voter rights, if you actually dont want to really address voting issues and instead just want to say how bad the other party is because of X, Y, Z reason.

 

I'm sorry, where the hell is this coming from? Voter ID laws disenfranchise many, many voters. There's no evidence that in-person fraud is a problem that needs to be addressed especially if any potential solution would disenfranchise a legitimate voter.

 

There are many, many voting issues I'd like to see addressed. None of those things have anything to do with Voter ID or your attempted "both sides!" claims. If you want to talk about other issues, fine. But on this issue, on Voter ID, I'll continue to maintain that one side is sinister and anti-democratic because they clearly are. That doesn't require me to comment on any other issues to make that statement.

 

[StrangeSox]

The affirmative action case from Texas is going to be in front of the SC soon. Important to note that the plaintiff really wasn't impacted by affirmative action.

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/20...ty-texas/63247/

[Soxbadger]

I actually have no idea what you are saying anymore. I am against voter id laws, I clearly stated that, I have no idea why you keep referencing that to me.

 

I actually am not assuming anything. There is voter fraud, its a fact. It happens. Now you say that you arent concerned because its "negligible", I say that is your opinion and that in my opinion we should strive to eliminate as much as possible.

 

I actually assume that both parties are cheating and thus by having more ways to catch people, less people will cheat. I know that is damn crazy. Its like why did baseball ever test for steroids? At one point no one had ever tested positive for steroids, so why ever implement a test, that just seems like a waste of time.

 

Once again, no idea why you keep responding to my posts and mentioning voter id. Im against voter id, Ive clearly explained why its wrong and I dont really think there is any good argument against mine.

[StrangeSox]

I dont really think there is any good argument against mine.

 

I think this applies to all of your posts

 

I keep bringing up Voter ID because that's what I was talking about when you objected. On that issue, who is sinister and who isn't is pretty damn clear.

 

If you can come up with some system that would eliminate the incredibly small amount of in-person fraud (less than one ten-thousand of one percent) without any negative impacts, great. Definitely better uses of resources out there, but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to that as I am to Voter ID.

 

edit: I also frequently don't know what I'm talking about anymore

Edited March 20, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

No I think there are some areas where there are legitimate counter arguments.

 

I just see no real good argument for why we should be asking for a lot more govt intrusion (id requirements) over an issue that can be fixed in other ways.

 

The main point is to ask why a party that is for "small govt" is trying to push "big govt" down our throat, when there are other less intrusive means?

[Cknolls]

I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this.

 

 

But we have to have absentee voting and early voting or nobody would be able to vote on Election Day. Somehow over the past 10 -20 years it is impossible for people to vote on the actual day they hold an election. How in the hell did this country survive 41 Presidential elections without early voting.....Because like that fraud in Ohio who voted multiple times....it never happens......purge dead people from the roles? Why do you need to do that?

[Balta1701]

But we have to have absentee voting and early voting or nobody would be able to vote on Election Day. Somehow over the past 10 -20 years it is impossible for people to vote on the actual day they hold an election. How in the hell did this country survive 41 Presidential elections without early voting.....Because like that fraud in Ohio who voted multiple times....it never happens......purge dead people from the roles? Why do you need to do that?

For 150+ years, it was legal to come up with random reasons why people couldn't vote that were solely designed to keep black people from having that right. So yeah, somehow over the past few decades, things have changed a lot. The right to vote wasn't recognized as a given right a few years ago. You could pass a law requiring people to pay money, to own land, to meet requirements that black people almost couldn't meet, in order to vote.

 

You should not have to lose a job in order to exercise your right to vote. The country doesn't shut down on election day. Some countries declare that a holiday and do exactly that; we do not. If a person has to wait in a 6 hour line to vote because there are not enough voting booths, they cannot work during that time. This should not happen.

 

If you want to fix that problem, great. We need a lot more voting stations, a lot more money, and a government who makes sure that states don't shut down voting booths to keep certain people from voting (aka the voting rights act). But right now, people will spend their whole day in line to exercise their right to vote, and that can cost them their livelihood. I'd be much happier to fix that in other ways, are you willing to do so? To spend the money, or to declare the elections to be a national holiday?

 

Because spending the money would make it easier for people who want to vote...to vote.

[StrangeSox]

Yglesias compares the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget to Paul Ryan's.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/0...e_liberals.html

 

I'm not sure why Paul Ryan and his incredibly ideological budget that would fundamentally alter the structure of government and is full of terrible math gets treated as a Very Serious Person while the CPC gets completely ignored and Democrats get attacked for not presenting a budget.

[bmags]

Yglesias compares the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget to Paul Ryan's.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/0...e_liberals.html

 

I'm not sure why Paul Ryan and his incredibly ideological budget that would fundamentally alter the structure of government and is full of terrible math gets treated as a Very Serious Person while the CPC gets completely ignored and Democrats get attacked for not presenting a budget.

 

Patty Murray's budget is the Democrat budget.

[bmags]

But we have to have absentee voting and early voting or nobody would be able to vote on Election Day. Somehow over the past 10 -20 years it is impossible for people to vote on the actual day they hold an election. How in the hell did this country survive 41 Presidential elections without early voting.....Because like that fraud in Ohio who voted multiple times....it never happens......purge dead people from the roles? Why do you need to do that?

 

I like how the example of a handful of voter fraud cases that were persecuted is proof that voter fraud is rampant. You only know about them (nun who voted for their dead friend, etc) because they were tracked down and caught via voter rolls. It is not an advancement for the photo id cause.

[StrangeSox]

On the one hand, we know voter fraud is real because lol democrats could never legitimately win elections, Real/Traditional Americans would never vote for them, but it's impossible to catch. On the other hand, incidents of voter fraud we catch are proof that the problem is endemic.

[StrangeSox]

I was looking for something way back in the 'buster archives and came across this OP from the 2006 election results. It couldn't be more absurd.

 

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back. A new direction from there means what?

 

Unemployment is at 25 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

 

Oil prices are plummeting. A new direction from there means what?

 

Taxes are at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

 

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs. A new direction from there means what?

 

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year. A new direction from there means what?

 

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years. A new direction from there means what?

 

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows. A new direction from there means what?

 

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01. A new direction from there means what?

 

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top

dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel. A new direction from there means what?

 

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets

being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks A new direction from there means what?

 

Just as Bush had planned and foretold us of on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are alighting the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here. A new direction from there means what?

 

Moreover, bear in mind that all of the above occurred in the face of the 1999 tech crash, the epidemic of corporate scandals throughout the 90's, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on NYC years in the planning which collectively sucked 24 trillion dollars and 7.8 million jobs out of the US economy even before G. W. Bush had time to unpack his suitcases in the White House. It's easy for the Democrats to attempt to discredit, disgrace and defame our commander in chief, George W. Bush -- that's what they do.

What's not so easy for them to do is to refute irrefutable facts, no matter how they might try

 

Funny how much stronger of a case you could've made for Obama using the exact same phrasing of that last paragraph.

[StrangeSox]

Where are the Media's Iraq War Boosters ten years later?

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/1...10-years/193117

 

Suck.On.This.

[lostfan]

Where are the Media's Iraq War Boosters ten years later?

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/1...10-years/193117

 

Suck.On.This.

Absolutely zero professional consequences whatsoever, for any of them.

[StrangeSox]

Judith Miller was a straight-up propaganda publisher for the Bush Administration (left-wing nyt!!!!!) and still gets regular appearances on Fox News.

 

There's no consequences, so there's no incentive to change. The best you get from the liberal hawks is the "I was wrong, but for the right reasons, while you were right for the wrong reasons" mea cupla.

[lostfan]

That kind of fourth-estate complicity is exactly how the government agencies in 60s got so out of control with the assassinations and whatnot. It indirectly creates a separate class of bureaucracy that sees itself as above the law but acting for the sake of the law (on behalf of whomever).

[StrangeSox]

Responses to Rumsfeld's Iraq tweet are pretty good:

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/19/the_finest...lds_iraq_tweet/

[bmags]

I'll say this, Tom Friedman's opinions were the most honest.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, he distilled the liberal/centrist hawk message so perfectly.

[bmags]

Yes, he distilled the liberal/centrist hawk message so perfectly.

 

He was dead wrong, but suck on this was so much more honest than WMD.

[StrangeSox]

Cable News is Terrible

 

Cable: The format of daytime cable news has evolved over the last five years to look more like prime-time talk programming. Interview segments are now as prominent in daytime cable as they are in prime time. Coverage of live events and live reports dropped in daytime programming by about one-third—from 33% of the newshole in 2007 to 23% in 2012. And the airtime devoted to interviews—which can cost far less to produce–rose from 39% to 51%, equaling the percentage of airtime they fill on cable at night, when partisan talk and debate drive the programming.

 

A separate analysis of cable in late 2012 finds that, over all, commentary and opinion are far more prevalent on the air (63% of the airtime) than straight news reporting (37%). CNN is the only channel to offer more reporting (54%) than opinion (46%), though by a small margin. By far the highest percentage of opinion and commentary is on MSNBC (85% to 15% reporting). Fox was in between at 55% commentary and 45% reporting.

 

Over the years, the three main cable news channels have evolved to become much more similar in programming structure. That marks a major change from 2007 when CNN was distinguished by its emphasis on edited packages and MSNBC spent far more time on interviews than either of its rivals. This convergence occurred after major shifts at all three networks. MSNBC changed its formatting most in prime time, Fox in daytime and CNN changed sharply in both day parts.

 

Good time to post The Daily Show's segment on investigative journalism, focusing on CNN

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Edited March 21, 2013 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Up with Chris is not original reporting, but is many times more informative than cnn at the top of the hour.

[StrangeSox]

He's good for this, too:

 

[bmags]

Did anyone read Tom Scocca's Gawker piece on affirmative action? Quality scocca trolling that (imo is also dead on, and i've felt that way since senior year when people were complaining about it).

 

nvm, here it is:

http://gawker.com/fisher-v%27-texas/

 

scared what path this may take us down.

Edited March 21, 2013 by bmags