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

sorry, doom doom doom in the wrong thread. i am cheerful this morning really!

people both individually and in aggregate are going to continue to behave the way they behave, which is as extraction addicts unable to shake the built-in faith that there is always more, until their environment undergoes significant disruptive changes and they are forced to adapt to it. that's how species work. i honestly think it's unfair to expect any more of us;

agree with some of that, but people will continue to behave the way they behave until some sort of mechanism adjusts their incentives, whether that's some sort of market mechanism, taxes, regulation, etc. public policy is supposed to step in here. the ozone problem would have been much, much worse if not for the environmental regulations of the late 80s/early 90s. regulations that were based upon republican ideas, ironically.

sure. at this point though, i dunno, i doubt the ability of (democratic, heh) governments to adopt sufficiently powerful public policy to fix the problem. especially deadlocked plutocracies like ours. and it isn't just us, of course; there is also the awkward conversation the rich countries will have to have with the developing world, like lol sorry guys i know the industrial revolution looked really fun and you were all really looking forward to it but we've just discovered there's a monster at the end of this book.

oh, totally. yeah, i'm more doomy on the topic than just about anyone i know. i'm just saying, it's not an impossible problem, there are plenty of workable ideas that would go a long way toward avoiding the needless deaths of hundreds of millions of people. but the perception is that it would ruin the economy. that's wrong. but anyway, once that perception is there and embraced vocally and/or tacitly by all sides, you're stuck in a trap, because when the economy is bad it's not the right time to do something about climate change, and when the economy is doing better, why would you endanger that recovery by doing something about climate change? there's never a good time.

That conversation in full: "Psyche!"

The perception is that it will ruin the economy in the next electoral cycle - after that the incumbents will surely be dead before it really starts to bite rich white westerners.

Fast trains are the solution to both the bad economy and climate change. I love trains.

i don't even care whether they fix anything i just want them.

anyway, i'm so not looking forward to being right about all this

Blow up I-95.

sneaking suspicion that either silby or dlh or both are sock puppets for biden

the first time i rode a train it was amtrak from portland to seattle and i was all giddy getting on it w/ visions of agatha christie and THEN the conductor came on the pa and said "this train is now leaving for vancouver, kelso/longview, tacoma, vienna, belgrade, budapest, and con-STAN-tinople" and i was like !!!!. for everyone else on the train this was no doubt a kinda twee and obnoxious thing for the conductor to have done (and i've never heard a conductor do it again) but i needed it.

remember that george will article about how trains are inherently authoritarian cuz you have to follow the tracks and thus OF COURSE progressives love them? that was amazing.

The 20th Century Limited went express from New York to Chicago in 16 hours. In 1938.

In 2012, Amtrak's Lakeshore Limited takes 19 hours (albeit with intermediate stops).

O should really be taking policy cues from Biden and run on a train-construction platform.

remember that george will article about how trains are inherently authoritarian cuz you have to follow the tracks and thus OF COURSE progressives love them? that was amazing

even more amazing was the Krugman blog where Paul sees Will disembarking from an Amtrak commuter, shortly after the original column

Two weeks ago I Amtrakked from Montreal to New York...conductor (?) was likewise having a good time conveying reports of bald eagle sightings and announcing "Schenectady! Schenectady! Schenecta-necta-nectady!" but yeah, high speed it was not.

oh god Romney at the NALEO

would be nice of you to answer the question though

the question "who are you kidding"? I don't know if you're, like, 12 years old, but here's some news: my underarms sweat. Sometimes they stink! This doesn't invalidate my observation that your underarms stink when they sweat. Unless you are a fucking idiot, then maybe ok.

no, the question about who are the "believers" in this thread you were talking about?

oh! ha sorry. thought I had corrected that last night - I think you think I mean "Obama true-believers," of whom I don't think there are many. I'd say most everybody here is a believer in the system, or at least in the claim that it's the best we can hope for - aren't you? I'd characterize the ilx politics thread as mainly left-leaning dudes who're skeptical but not cynical about the process but who believe reforms are possible and that one party is more likely to help their left-leaning cause than the other. that kind of believer: and most of you.

you definitely believe the democrats are more likely to help your left-leaning cause than the other party, too, aero

this system sucks! I only "believe" in it inasmuch as it appears to be held in place by insurmountable forces (ie, droves of morons)

they may be unethical, industry-coddling, ecology-damaging war criminals who aren't doing much to soothe your soul or save the planet, but we all know that they're helping left-leaning causes more than republicans are

that is true

name these causes.

all of them?

the key phrase is "more than republicans"

I'm not a believer in the system so much as I accept that this is the system that is here now and it doesn't make much sense to disengage with it completely because slowing down the rot and *maybe* making tiny, incremental improvements wherever one can is surely better than washing hands of it completely.

Then again I also feel that nothing can change without the people, and as a country we're not generally the kinds to encourage much in the way of critical thinking or 'education' in general so I would never expect much of anything in the way of drastic shifts to the left. We do, as a society, financially rewards amoral idiots on a regular basis.

xposts

@ croupier: "more likely" in the sense that I'm more likely to lose the lottery than win it, yes. the correct question Morbs is "define help" - in my usual area of focus: Democrats can be counted on to oppose the most egregious, are-you-fucking-kidding-me aspects of anti-choice legislation. This legislation might be met with similar bills that expand access to constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights: all kinds of little bills you imght introduce, in order to do what the Republicans (smartly) do: keep your position out there, continue reinforcing that it's your position & you think it's righteous, expand the reach of the righteous gains you've won. This is not something I believe the Democratic party will ever do. They play a "let the other guy take your shit, then tell people you need help getting it back" game. This game is played at considerable loss to real people. I'll vote for them anyway, because they will oppose the most egregious harms done by the opposition: but they won't actually, you know, stand up for the cause. A stray one here or there, but not as a party, and varying by district and whether speaking up might cost them votes.

to take one example from personal experience, a lot of ARRA funds went to energy efficiency projects and programs for public agencies (state energy departments, cities, schools, etc.). GOP never would have done that.

xp

if you want a clear demonstration of difference I don't think you really need to look any further than the legislation Pelosi passed as Speaker vs. the shit Boehner has passed as Speaker.

yes but they're not going to stop the apocalypse and therefore, if you really don't have much to worry about except for the apocalypse, there's no difference between the parties

as you know I support the apocalypse

no you don't you vote for democrats

you just talk a lot of shit

the idea that neither party matters when there's an apocalypse is simply not true. one party put forward the "cash for clunkers" initiative, something that will pay dividends after the apocalypse for some

http://content9.flixster.com/photo/66/46/30/6646303_gal.jpg

voting for Democrats is totally apocalypse-friendly!

nah if you really wanted the apocalypse you'd pick the "express lane" party, not the scenic route

I actually have commie friends who do that but I don't have the stomach for it

will there be arts funding post-apocalypse, or still just Kickstarter?

kickstarter actually involves kicking post-apocalypse

here's another example

GOP would just eliminate the EPA altogether, if they had their way.

and O let some major pollutant reg lapse, didn't he?

they did, and that was wrong. however, there is a real, quantitative difference between weak regulations and NO regulations.

EPA needs a massive overhaul because they seem to be a bunch of bought out sumbitches on their own but it's better to have it *something* than nothing at all as Shakey said

they did, and that was wrong. however, there is a real, quantitative difference between weak regulations and NO regulations.

gah yes and it's exactly what you immediately hop down my throat about! one's terrible and the other's just awful!

ok so it's the Daily Show and i know i know but still, from last week: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-14-2012/a-simple-plot?xrs=share_copy

one's terrible and the other's just awful!

"So just be glad they're awful"

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/annie1.jpg

woody's a good icon for the "yes i'll vote democrat and help other people but i don't have to like it" grumpy old man block

at least Alvy had Adlai to support.