Law School Discussion

Why Obama will lose in the fall

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2008, 12:37:23 PM »
issue whether you wipe poo off your ears when pull it out your a-hole.

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2008, 12:43:38 PM »
as always jules, you're an absolute caution! something insightful with every syllable. well done old girl!

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2008, 12:54:05 PM »
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler on the subject?

Actually, yeah, you do have a weak grasp of libertarian policies if you think the article you cited provides evidence for a libertarian worldview (at least in the economic sphere). Where are the calls from Obama (or his advisor) for reduced taxes and social services? Where does he call for a reduction in government? Koffler may read his advisor's agenda as "left-libertarianism" but what I read is a government providing more of a guiding, or Visible, hand in the free market, not the reverse (which would be, um, Actual libertarianism) in order to make those social justice and collective action decisions more rational to the individual. In fact, what this sounds like is efficient, good government.

frybread, I'd also like to add that I wasn't the one making the point about his supposedly libertarian policy views, so the vacuous nature of my first reply (avec le faux outrage! Sacre Bleu!) was equal to what I was replying to. If you want to make that case though, you'll have to do better than a sneer followed by a cite that doesn't actually back up what you are arguing.

Please indicate where I said Obama had strict libertarian world view.  My point, as was Koffler's, is that Obama's proposed policies are more libertarian than Clinton's, which, in my estimation, could possibly account for the purported preference in the Latino community for Clinton over Obama. 

BTW, you were the one responsible for establishing the tone of our exchange, so cut the *&^% about my purported "sneer".  I was bored by your empty critique.  Now I'm bored by your lack of reading comprehension.

Wrong again. You said "much more [than Clinton]," which to my mind should at least imply "some." Now if you can cite "some" policy on which Obama is "much more libertarian" than Clinton I'd welcome reading it. And please try to find something that doesn't just redefine the word. Since you have the time to post holier-than-thou replies, I'm sure you also have the time to find it.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2008, 12:55:06 PM »
as always jules, you're an absolute caution! something insightful with every syllable. well done old girl!

well, duh.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2008, 10:19:46 PM »
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2008, 10:31:03 PM »
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2008, 11:02:53 PM »
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.

Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2008, 01:54:36 AM »
You're either with us or against us! (?)

Martin Prince, Jr.

  • ****
  • 148
  • Excelsior!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2008, 06:51:24 AM »
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.

Thanks for the link, Miss P, it was an interesting jaunt through the world of behavioral economics. Unfortunately it falls into the same trap the last article did, which was devote the clear majority of almost 40 paragraphs to discussing the economic proposals of an "informal, occasional advisor" to Obama rather than Obama's own proposals. And that leads to an interesting construct:

1) 20 paragraph examination of "informal, occasional advisor's" last book
2) Informal, occasional advisor proposes something with the word "libertarian" in it (in this case, "libertarian paternalism," which the essayist rightfully points out as an oxymoron)
3) Author asks rhetorical question: "Is Obama libertarian"?
4) As evidence, exactly *ONE* paragraph on the fact that his universal health care plan does not have a mandate on adults.

Seriously? Now, I've said on this board before that I'm totally in the tank for the Magical Unity Pony (and for very similar reasons to Miss P, with the addition of a rational foreign policy and a return of the rule of law - FYI, frybread, that would be the change that he is talking about), but this article definitely falls into the "lack thereof" category... I mean, Obama also supports a 100% cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. How does that square with a libertarian outlook? Or his liberal internationalist foreign policy? Again, I'm not trying to be a male private part, and am genuinely interested (otherwise would I have read that entire thing?) in reading about his economic proposals, which have definitely gotten short shrift in the campaign in comparison to his foreign policy proposals.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2008, 07:36:54 AM »
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.

Fortunately, for my own sanity, I don't feel so strongly compelled to subjugate my misgivings to the Unity Pony, as my vote is insignificant in this matter (I live in a very Dem district.)  So I get to be the obnoxious purist and pontificate from stage left.  ;)  (It will be the first pres cycle since 1988 which I sit out, but the Kool-aid guzzlers (v. sippers) honestly aren't interested in my practical experience (Hope and Change will provide for sufficient poll watchers and phone bankers) so I'm pretty content in my neglected, rejected state.  8).) 

Seriously? Now, I've said on this board before that I'm totally in the tank for the Magical Unity Pony (and for very similar reasons to Miss P, with the addition of a rational foreign policy and a return of the rule of law - FYI, frybread, that would be the change that he is talking about), but this article definitely falls into the "lack thereof" category... I mean, Obama also supports a 100% cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. How does that square with a libertarian outlook? Or his liberal internationalist foreign policy? Again, I'm not trying to be a male private part, and am genuinely interested (otherwise would I have read that entire thing?) in reading about his economic proposals, which have definitely gotten short shrift in the campaign in comparison to his foreign policy proposals.

See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself.  I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)