the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

Ryan Lizza speculating on Obama's second term.

Lizza talking about Reagan in that article with no mention of Iran-Contra. I guess that's how most people remember or are being taught Reagan's legacy.

Digby has been speculating that Obama if re-elected, he is planning on doing a grand bargain deficit and entitlements deal that will take from the middle class and the poor more than from the rich

sounds about right, which is why I despise the term 'entitlement reform.'

Pretty obvious the legacy of Obama's second term, if he gets one, will be a defense of the health care reforms of his first terms against a non-stop barrage of bullshitery, both after the Supreme Court soon weakens it and also once it is fully implemented in 2014. That, and the usual wars and stuff.

my God, the New Yorker uses an umlaut in "reelection."

I thought, though with too great a certainty, Taibbi called a Dem/Bam win properly after the mid-terms: "And then the Democrats will do nothing for four years again."

As Dick Morris, of Fox News, put it in March, “A second term for Obama would bring on a socialist nightmare hellscape as he moves further to the left.”

Socialist nightmare hellscape!

Socialist Nightmare Hellscape landed just outside my Top 35 in the horror-film poll.

i'd like to see a movie with a Zombie Ceausescu or a Vampire Stalin, now that i think of it.

my God, the New Yorker uses an umlaut in "reelection."

It's a diaeresis, fool.

Socialist Nightmare Hellscape landed just outside my Top 35 in the horror-film poll.

iirc it was sponsored by the swedish tourist board

I think that would sing well to Robyn Hitchcock's "Tropical Flesh Mandala"

The famous Statue of Liberty scene:

http://rossrightangle.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-vampire-275x300.jpg?w=632

"In British English this usage has been obsolete for many years, and in US English, although it persisted for longer, it is also now considered archaic. Nevertheless, it is still used by the US magazine The New Yorker."

my God, the New Yorker uses an umlaut in "reelection."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis.html

yes, jaymc beat ya to it

fancy puncts give me diaeresis

Drink a big glass of warm salty water. (/Lord Julius)

I'm guessing most of you didn't get laïd in high school.
Posted 5/10/2012, 2:49:15pm by bweinstein1

reerection

it is not at all hard to fault anyone for their wrongdoing, no matter how common it may seem. millions are imprisoned for crimes that tens of millions commit. it is only by demanding extraordinarily honorable behavior, and by being genuinely shocked and outraged by anything less, that we can exert pressure against the typical criminality of those who rule us.

― contenderizer, Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:16 PM (Yesterday)

this is so OTM. i get so weary of that 'ah well, they all do it, it's tough being king dontcha know' cynical long-view bullshit.

that said, i blame congress for not impeaching bush back in 06/07 way more than i blame obama for not prosecuting anyone.

i think it's interesting that (on these forums at least) optimistic short-viewers couch their ideology in practically deontological ethics, and cynical long-viewers do so in more consequentialist (almost mohist) ones

http://ericwongmma.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/confused-monkey.jpg

eh, i don't know that that's so. my optimistic short-view argument is almost entirely consequentialist: we should reject the cynical long-view because accepting it undercuts our ability to manufacture the moral shock and outrage necessary to effectively fight that which we oppose.

like, if you had these two arguments:

1. Criminals should always be prosecuted bc that's what it right to do.
or
2. Some criminals should not be prosecuted bc you need to overlook some crimes to preserve a society. (which I think is a slightly more active version of 'you can't expect all crimes to be prosecuted, and other things are more important to pursue, like healthcare')

they aren't just shortview/longview or cynical/optimist, they are actually arguments about how we should evaluate ethics. should they be deontological (actions are themselves right or wrong) or consequential (what matters is the outcome)?

contenderizer seems to be some double-cynical argument where we should prosecute every criminal, not necessarily bc it's a fundamental right but bc ppl think it is and if we want to convince them and stir them to fight, we have to make them feel righteous.

why is it a choice

Consequentialism tends towards bullshit, but deontological ethics start off as bullshit, the only non-bullshit approach is to be a moral anti-realist and admit that we only say things are right or wrong because we just happen to feel that way. </notarealphilosopher>

how well is society doing now by not prosecuting approvers of torture? We've reenforced the suspicion that Scooter Libbys and Dick Cheneys get sentences commuted or not charged entirely because we need Solid Citizens like them in government.

obv there's a whole school of reconciling the two but i'm talking in broad generalities (maybe what piece is emphasized more) xxp

well, i think some ppl here argue that society is better off now that it didn't prosecute them than if we had. it's a counterfactual that suggests if the prosecutions would have happened, the healthcare bill wouldn't have been passed.

what people here argue that. name names.

well. isn't iatee saying that here?

the thing is, you have health care, you do not have some horrible condition - afaik you are not one of the millions of americans being fucked by our health care system. so you don't actually have some unbiased philosopher's view of the subject and you can't pretend to.

if my little brother, who has a horrible case of arthritis and cannot really...walk around without horrible pain, was also like "yeah, you know, I think we really shoulda gone after the bush guys, it's worth it, I don't care if health care reform never passes even though its existence is the difference between living my entire life in pain and not living my entire life in pain" - if my little brother said that or really, anyone in that kinda situation, you can go look for one and bring them to ilx, if someone in that situation does the philosopher math and agrees with you, then maybe it's a shame-obama path worth exploring.

until then all I see is 'person with health care decides giving millions of people health care not more important than putting some people in jail'

― iatee, Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:41 PM (Yesterday)

contenderizer seems to be some double-cynical argument where we should prosecute every criminal, not necessarily bc it's a fundamental right but bc ppl think it is and if we want to convince them and stir them to fight, we have to make them feel righteous.

not exactly. my argument takes as given that the crime in question represents something that we think is a significant social problem (i was responding specifically to Aimless' "#theyalldoitdefense" remark about the "typical" criminality of supreme leaders, an argument that takes place at a pretty high level of abstraction to begin with).

i don't deny that it's smart to choose one's battles. it certainly is, but i'm arguing for the possible utility of a kind of unconsidered, non-strategic, and even anti-intellectual approach where moral responses to perceived moral transgressions are concerned. the more rational our morality and the more considered our moral responses, the more generally apathetic (and intelligent) they become - or so it seems to me. the problem isn't the intelligence, but the concomitant apathy.

sometimes, the best response to a transgression is not a careful consideration of whether or not there should be a response, and if so, what form it should take, but rather a great and howling atavistic "NO!" the republicans have that shit down, btw.

ah yes. missed that. also missed the return of iatee apparently!

xp

liberals shout great howling atavistic NOs way too often

really? i hardly hear it in our national politics.

i think it's silly to try and 'intellectualize' yourself into be more anti-intellectual

that's probably true, but do admire them their simplicity

My optimism is short term to the extreme; that is, I can only be optimistic on an hour by hour basis. The farther out I go from right now, the more pessimistic I get.

that said, i blame congress for not impeaching bush back in 06/07 way more than i blame obama for not prosecuting anyone.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 11 June 2012 20:59 (35 minutes ago) Permalink

Public opinion polls were more approving of impeachment than criminal prosecution fwiw.

prefer you go out the farther from left

xpost

liberals shout great howling atavistic NOs way too often

Alleged liberals in office? Seem to go along with righties most of the time.

Q: Shall we prosecute members of the Bush administration for war crimes?

A: (howling atavistically): NO!

The problem is yeah by now it's obviously not just members of the Bush administration and there'd probably be people and agencies that O is working with currently and it'd just be a huge mess. I think we'd 100% pull out of Afghanistan and remove all our assassination drones before prosecution would ever be on the table.

As for should we prosecute all criminals? Hell yes. If not, then there's no respect for the law. Justice should be blind, it's what gives it legitimacy.

thing about argument that investigation of cheney et al would somehow mean that obama wouldn't have political capital to pass health care...:

the health care bill passed on a pretty strict party-line vote. after all the compromising and gutting that occurred before it even came to the floor in hopes of persuading some republicans, they didn't budge IIRC. so as long as there were dem majorities in both houses, health care reform was probably going to happen.

or am i being naïve?

there were plenty of procedural votes on various relevant committees that needed buy-in from a few republicans at early points in the process, before anybody was paying attention. remember when chuck grassley was holding the whole thing up? the final shape of the bill had enormous republican input (but not support) and nobody should be allowed to forget it.

it's conceivable that an even more heated partisan atmosphere that early in the term may have soured things like that, but that is very conjectural.

no court would convict Cheney and Bush, it's sort of a moot point

any cases would have just gone to the SC and gee I wonder how they would all vote

prosecutions also would have taken up the entire first term, if not longer

you're my defense secretary -- think of something