The Good Post Gallery

[Antonio the Sixth]

Barack Obama's "claim to fame" is that he rescued the United States economy, reinvigorated the American auto industry, and ordered the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Stop it with this nonsense. People are not voting for Obama because he's a cool black JFK. They're voting for him because the Republican party and its standard bearer are repugnant and hold most of the country in disdain, and at the end of the day Obama is a hard-working guy who's generally done the best anyone could do and they trust him to keep working to make their lives better.

[© tweed]

I didn't look it up, but are these in reality the Republican respondents' sample from their Florida poll? Because they seem awfully similar to what the makeup of the Republican Party is - 85% white, less than 1 in 10 under the age of 30, 53% male, etc.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't see how anyone who calls him/herself left-wing can support reactionary, neoliberal forces who want to re-centralize control of the country with the wealthy elite and foreign corporations instead of Chavez. Yeah, he's not perfect on civil liberties and human rights, but he's hardly the first and he won't be the last Latin American president who isn't. You need to remember that the people that are working against him have been trying to delegitimize him and his supporters since he first came to power, up to and including literally overthrowing him in a military coup at one point. It's not like he's some murderous dictator; at worst there's a small amount of election fraud (but he still has the support of the majority of the Venezuelan people) and some press restrictions (on, let's remember, a faction that led an armed military coup against him after he was twice democratically elected by a wide margin).

If the neoliberal opposition ever came to power, there is absolutely no question that they would be just as bad or worse when it comes to using the government to silence and oppress Chavez and his supporters. Their history of opposition to him proves as much. Their first two attempts to remove him from power were anti-democratic and done outside legitimate means. First there was the 2002 military coup, which resulted in the forces that took over abolishing the constitution and immediately adopting totalitarian control of the country, leading to massive protests that forced them to allow Chavez back to power. Then in 2003-2004 there was a "general strike" at the state oil company, not of workers, but of the management, in an attempt to sabotage an industry that is crucial to the Venezuelan economy and weaken Chavez's position in the process. This extra-legal, anti-democratic attempt to remove Chavez failed as well. Only then, on their third try, did the rich elite turn to democratic means, a recall referendum that they lost overwhelmingly.

If you want a real example of political conflict between the 1% and the 99%, there is none greater than the fight that is going on in Venezuela. On the one hand, you have a neo-imperialist upper elite that has held a stranglehold on the country's economy for decades, profiting off the sale of the country's resources to the west while the majority of the country toiled in endless poverty. On the other you have Chavez and his supporters, mostly the poor and racial/indigenous minorities who for hundreds of years have had little to no say in how their country is governed. Is Chavez perfect? No. Have his policies fixed all the problems of social and economic inequality that have plagued the country since its inception? No. Would I prefer that he have greater respect for civil liberties? Yes. But at the end of the day, the choice is not between Chavez and some hypothetical perfect Third Way left-winger. It's between Chavez and the champions of an autocratic wealthy elite that has controlled the country for most its history.

I'll end by recounting what former Brazilian president Lula da Silva, a leader who I think all on the left and center-left can admire and support with few reservations, said in his endorsement of Chavez's re-election:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

He's ahead in spite of being a black.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Take heed. This is what tenbatsu for decades of profligacy looks like.

Only neoliberalism can save Greece now.

At first I thought this was a sarcastic joke, but then I remembered you're the guy who actually unironically refers to himself as a neoliberal. Please take note of a few things:

1. "Neoliberalism" carries very negative connotations; no serious politician or organization (outside of a couple of DC think-tanks in the early 1980's) has ever referred to themselves as a neoliberal. Its only used in political discouse to deride one's opponents.

2. Neoliberalism isn't really a political philosophy. It's used to describe the ideology behind internationally-imposed austerity programs, budget cuts, and trade liberalization measures. The term originated to describe the "Washington Consensus" implemented throughout the Americas by the IMF and IADB in the aftermath of the Latin American debt crisis. The strict mandates were done because it was the only way international banks would feel secure enough to get their money back from these short-term emergency loans coordinated by the IMF. Even at it's root neoliberalism has nothing to do with promoting economic growth, it's just a way to force a country to cut back on spending enough that international lenders didn't have to face a default. The other enforced reforms which sought to deregulate and liberalize the "recipient" nation's economy were at best misguided efforts to promote long-term economic growth to even out the nation's economy by making up for the fact that the immediate economic "readjustment" would be disasterous. Even then, it hurt more than it helped and plummetted many nations into intense socioeconomic instability.

3.It's worth pointing out that the only nation in South America to make it through the Washington Consensus mostly unscathed was Chile, because their dictator forced the reforms through at gunpoint, and they got an early enough start on liberalization so the IMF was never able to Chile to sell off the extremely lucurative government-owned copper mines. Colombia also made it through mostly okay thanks to the tons of cocaine money constantly entering their economy as well as the constant blank checks sent from the US to help Colombia fight the spread of communism and such. Besides that, it was disasterous.

4. This social and economic unrest is BECAUSE of neoliberalism. Greece doesn't have an oppressive dictator and moneymaking nationalized industries like Chile did, and Greece doesn't have a superpower sugardaddy and a very profitable black market export like Colombia did. The problems Greece suffers from currently are virtually identical to those caused by the Washington Consensus elsewhere. If a nation is forced to cut back on spending so much that the police can't even operate effectively, and shrink social safety nets to the point that the retired and the unemployed can't even put food on the table, things like this happen. Neoliberalism is quite obviously part of the problem, not the solution. 

[they don't love you like i love you]

I came here just to add that BK post.

[Oakvale]

Someone should cc: that to the Sulfur Mine, too.

[they don't love you like i love you]

This also deserves some recognition:

Would Americans want Puerto Rico to be state however? I think there has been little discussion what this would actually mean, in practice, if it were to happen except for Rick Santorum, who basically gave reasons why I doubt most Americans would support statehood for PR if it actually came to it.

If PR were to ask for statehood, it would be extremely difficult politically to deny it. It would, in fact, require taking an outright anti-Hispanic stand, with little possibility of any sort of a fudge - not something one would necessarily want to do.

It is further complicated by the fact that within PR it is the relatively pro-Republican PNP that's pro-statehood, while the outright pro-Democratic PDP prefers the status quo. While PNP is not exactly the local affiliate of the Republican party (it does have a pro-Dem wing, though that one is relatively weak right now), nearly all the local Republicans are part of it. If the national Republican party opposes statehood, it would amount to a complete destruction of the local Republican organization on the island. As Puerto Ricans are US citizens (something that, in the short term is not even possible to change if PR declares independence), they can and do vote when they find themselves living on the mainland.  Oposing statehood would, basically, tell those of them who still vote Republican that their party does not want their vote - in those many words and, once again, without much realistic possibility of a fudge.

It would even be pretty hard to make a principled anti-statehood argument in a way that wouldn't alienate at least some normally pro-Republican Cuban-Americans: it wouldll all come down to the issues of language and culture that Cubans themselves hold dear, and the arguments would undoubtedly degenerate into outright anti-Hispanic claims that would make a lot of people feel very unwelcome in that sort of a party. At that point, being a Hispanic (even Cuban) Republican would become a lot like being a gay Republican - not impossible, but not that easy or pleasant.

To sum up, if the Republican party openly opposes statehood, it would go a long way towards making sure that the Hispanic electorate converges to black levels of support for the Democrats. And, of course, when and if PR votes for statehood, Democrats themselves would have no incentive at all to oppose it. Hence, though a number of diehard anti-Hispanics can be counted on making a few passionate speaches, nobody who cares about national political implications would dare to do anything to prevent it happening.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This also deserves some recognition:

Would Americans want Puerto Rico to be state however? I think there has been little discussion what this would actually mean, in practice, if it were to happen except for Rick Santorum, who basically gave reasons why I doubt most Americans would support statehood for PR if it actually came to it.

If PR were to ask for statehood, it would be extremely difficult politically to deny it. It would, in fact, require taking an outright anti-Hispanic stand, with little possibility of any sort of a fudge - not something one would necessarily want to do.

It is further complicated by the fact that within PR it is the relatively pro-Republican PNP that's pro-statehood, while the outright pro-Democratic PDP prefers the status quo. While PNP is not exactly the local affiliate of the Republican party (it does have a pro-Dem wing, though that one is relatively weak right now), nearly all the local Republicans are part of it. If the national Republican party opposes statehood, it would amount to a complete destruction of the local Republican organization on the island. As Puerto Ricans are US citizens (something that, in the short term is not even possible to change if PR declares independence), they can and do vote when they find themselves living on the mainland.  Oposing statehood would, basically, tell those of them who still vote Republican that their party does not want their vote - in those many words and, once again, without much realistic possibility of a fudge.

It would even be pretty hard to make a principled anti-statehood argument in a way that wouldn't alienate at least some normally pro-Republican Cuban-Americans: it wouldll all come down to the issues of language and culture that Cubans themselves hold dear, and the arguments would undoubtedly degenerate into outright anti-Hispanic claims that would make a lot of people feel very unwelcome in that sort of a party. At that point, being a Hispanic (even Cuban) Republican would become a lot like being a gay Republican - not impossible, but not that easy or pleasant.

To sum up, if the Republican party openly opposes statehood, it would go a long way towards making sure that the Hispanic electorate converges to black levels of support for the Democrats. And, of course, when and if PR votes for statehood, Democrats themselves would have no incentive at all to oppose it. Hence, though a number of diehard anti-Hispanics can be counted on making a few passionate speaches, nobody who cares about national political implications would dare to do anything to prevent it happening.

I thought most Puerto Ricans opposed statehood because they think it means giving up their cultutre (which it doesn't).  If it weren't for that, I would support that, but if they don t support it, then I don't  I think the GOP needs to educate the Hispanic/Latino community about what we really believe.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Sicko.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I saw the debate last night - Romney was well-prepared, Obama clearly didn't want to be there - can't blame him, mind, it was his anniversary - and it's pretty clear that Romney "won".

More to the point, the media's been itching to move on from the stale "Romney's finished!" narrative and on to a much more exciting "it's a close race now!" one - even if Romney hadn't turned in a better performance, just holding his own on stage with the President would give him a decent bump and some favourable news cycles.

The debate was "do or die" for Romney, and he saved his campaign, but let's not act as if this is some amazing game changer. If Romney had lost the debate, he'd be finished, as is he's still in the race. That's undeniably good news for Romney, but I don't think it changes the fundamental picture of the election.

Republicans and Democrats, relax. Republicans - Romney had a polished performance, but didn't have any "Reaganesque" quips, and, Democrats -  Obama had a flat performance, but didn't make any gaffes and didn't lose any voters.

I'm rambling a bit, but I can't really handle the chaos around here today.

2012 board after the debate:

[they don't love you like i love you]

Would recommend that non Jay Jay posters desist immediately, lest they want to waste a surprising amount of time arguing with a barrier made of fired clay.

[opebo]

Teacher had a point.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I know this is a story because it was a Romney shirt but please, for a moment, take politics out of this. We have a teacher here that asked students and fellow teachers to mock a student after already mocking the girl in class and intimidating her ("This is a Democratic school" Note the irony). Then, after being reprimanded, she blamed the girl by telling the class, "I'm not allowed to joke with you anymore." She then left the building.

This is someone who was trusted with teaching and supervising children. Everyone should be enraged by this behavior.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, Phil is absolutely right here.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I am beginning to suspect that Beet is an accountant. No other explanation for such fear of tax reform...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

great advice and perspective on driving:

As my dad says, "wait until its cheaper".  Its better to be wrong than dead right.

[sentinel]

 The whole unemployment numbers conspiracy thing makes me laugh.  My first politcal experience was working for a Democratic State Senate Campaign back in 1984.  Democrats as Mondale supporters were pretty vocal about how Reagen cooked the numbers, and that unemployment was actually much higher due to people leaving the workforce.  Republican Reagen supporters of course all pointed to the figures to show how great the economic recovery was.
  Fast forward 28 years and here we are again, only this time it is the Republicans crying conspiracy, and that the unemployment numbers are cooked while the Democrats are pointing to them saying that indeed the incumbent President is getting things done.
  Stay in politics long enough and you'll see both sides using the exact same argument at different times.  Be careful, your opponent's argument today may be your exact argument tomorrow!!

Ill_Ind

[anvi]

Hitting the virtual "Like" button for Ill_Ind's post above.

[opebo]

The things you find when you check out the second wave feminist subforum in DU (that basically everyone else hates, including other feminists. It's like their equivalent of the 2012 forum) I'd say "LOL" but it's so dumb it's not even funny.

You're acting as if this were an isolated, radical fringe. There are a lot more of these people than you'd think especially among the white upper class.

White upper class women don't have political views. They're too busy shopping and scolding the nanny. In any case, the man haters are usually the unattractive girls who haven't been treated right. Money has very little to do with it.

[© tweed]

though nothing's sexier than a very attractive heterosexual female man-hater.

[opebo]

though nothing's sexier than a very attractive heterosexual female man-hater.

Oh christ, go make a thread about your preversion somewhere else, and then we'll judge if any posts in it belong in the 'Good Gallery'.

[© tweed]

chill out bro.

[opebo]

chill out bro.

I was kidding, really.  I'd actually like to hear about your predilection, it sounds fascinating.  I'm usually most interested in things that aren't really my cup of tea.

[anvi]

...Romney said that Congress is going to make his implausible numbers add up. The same Comgress that can't even agree to a plan to cut the existing deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years is supposed to make Romneys additional $4.8 trillion in revenue loss budget neutral. There is no plan there, neither with Congress nor Romney. His confidence is unjustified. You need more than empty promises.