Advertisement

the REAL politics of the 2012 election

topic posted Sat, February 25, 2012 - 12:34 PM by  d'zoner
Share/Save/Bookmark
the reality clock has run out or is running out on a number of manmade disasters-in-waiting where the shit will hit the fan in struly stupendous ways and the next president will be tasked with implementing the all out police state oligarchy needed to keep the masses sufficiently trodden and the rich and powerful safe and secure.

that's hard cold reality. this country is entering into an era of extremely volatility.

the wealthy elite power brokers (eliticons) at the very top are acutely aware of this. their decision will be who do they think can best accomplish that final critical implmentation.

obama of course wither knew this coming into presidency and for sure was fully genned in after he was elected and to his credit has done a truly masterful job of doing what was necessary to convince the eliticons he is the one for the job ... or at the very least a huge payout when he leaves office.

and while obama is undoubtably in denial about it, the eliticons might agree on the basis obama would also be the perfect patsy when the time came for one. these are east coast and european bluebloods we're talking about, the reality is obama can never be more than just another fully expendable ni**er to them. when the masses are screaming for a sacrifice, who better?

then install one of their own for the long haul.

the next president will need to be someone the majority of americans trust to at least some degree and like as a person as that shit starts hitting the fan in earnest. obama does fit that criteria pretty well ... BUT ... timing will be everything and there's that now that fully looney tunes and extremely well armed republican base that might just stop listening to fox news attempt to moderate them and take 'justice' into their own hands spoiling the timing and planning.

romney no longer has a change of being chosen, unless the eliticons have reached a consensus to go with obama, because the trust and likability factor has plummeted from what was already some serious pre-primary lows. zero trust from the start just won't do.

that's where jeb bush enters the scene. instant trust and likability factor with the right, soft spoken and coherent and WHITE for the 'heartland' and moderates and the left ... who cares, jeb can disarm them be being a white obama and de-activate them by pointing out a few radical fringe right policies obama has implemented the left used to rant against that jeb then declares went too far and he would undo.

another advantage jeb would have is he would be so trusted and liked by the right and the right would be so RELIEVED to have him as their candidate, jeb could actually move slightly to the left of obama on many issues and still keep the right motivated behind him. a political danger obama might not have considered as he triangulated moving so far to the right as to drive the republicans into right wing loonyland.

if jeb bush emerges from the convention, it means the eliticons have decided against obama and the money will see a winning republican candidate and the money will overwhelming swing to jeb even as the msm, in myraid subtle ways, will also start to swing behind jeb bush.

and obama will see the writing on the wall and find a way to bow out one way or another.

i haven't seen obama as a two term president since his second month in office when he turned out to be a total eliticon bitch. since he's obviosly not in it for the greater glory and as obviously is utterly without actual morals or ethics and could give a shit less about the 99%, i figured he's take his win and exit 'gracefully' before the shit really started hitting the fan in 2012-2016. you know, when 'extend and pretend' kinda stops working for realsies and oil production starts declining.

and a whole lot of republican loonies with guns they use on a regular basis decide the only way to 'save' their country is to remove the person who is 'destroying' it.

that would include a number of ex-military types with deep knowledge and experience in delivering lethal force from a distance.

obama would very stupid to try to win another four years into the teeth of such explosive, and personally dangerous to him and his family, times when he can retire into a massive payout from a grateful wealthy elite.
posted by:
d'zoner
Advertisement
  • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Sat, February 25, 2012 - 1:13 PM
    as much as the left has disagreed with obama's policies, i don't see them turning out in droves to support another bush. sorry, it just ain't happening.
    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

      Sat, February 25, 2012 - 2:45 PM
      they, in effect, will if they are reminded just how far right and radical obama has really gone and that de-energizes the left.

      they aren't going to directly support bush. it'll be a reverse of the 2008 election with the right REALLY energized and the left dispirited and de-energized by the reality of obama.

      obamas whole political triangulation strategy is to take over the rights positions and push the rights agenda so the right is driven into the extreme fringe positions. which is exactly what has transpired.

      that only works if the actual republican candidate had to go through the primary process exposing extreme fringe stances so obama could run as the 'moderate'.

      jeb bush would end run that strategy and nullify it and jeb bush could emerge as the moderate. obama DOES have a actual record of supporting neocon right positions ... AS PRESIDENT. jeb bush carries no such baggage.

      if jeb bush can come across as a sane, rational, well spoken and moderate, i mean LOOK at him, he looks and speaks like a college professor. the right won't care because he JEB BUSH, and the left won't be spooked by him. how is obama going to differentiate himself? besides being black.

      jeb also speaks fluent spanish. BIG advantage.
      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Sat, February 25, 2012 - 7:35 PM
        "they, in effect, will if they are reminded just how far right and radical obama has really gone and that de-energizes the left."

        No matter how far he's swerved, he's till 'way more in the middle than any of the Republican clowns who keep harping on issues that independents, democrats and moderate republicans see as inconsequental and even repugnant.
        • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Sat, February 25, 2012 - 8:45 PM
          <No matter how far he's swerved, he's till 'way more in the middle than any of the Republican clowns who keep harping on issues that independents, democrats and moderate republicans see as inconsequental and even repugnant.>

          didn't read the original post?
      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:35 AM
        <<they aren't going to directly support bush. it'll be a reverse of the 2008 election with the right REALLY energized and the left dispirited and de-energized by the reality of obama.

        Reality is such that the left is way more energized than the right, the GOP can barely get their voters out to vote for the primaries with record low turnout.

        <<. the right won't care because he JEB BUSH, and the left won't be spooked by him. how is obama going to differentiate himself? besides being black.

        Simple, he does not have the poisonous last name "Bush".
    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

      Sun, February 26, 2012 - 10:57 AM
      <as much as the left has disagreed with obama's policies, i don't see them turning out in droves to support another bush. sorry, it just ain't happening.>

      if there was a poll in july 2003 posing the possibility of there being a black president named Barack Hussein Obama by 2008, choice 4 "are you on DRUGS?" would have been the overwhelming choice.

      you give too much creedence to the name 'bush' being an liability that can't be overcome.

      obama OVERCAME his ridiculously unfortunate name with his personality, mannerisms and pure political skills.

      the majority of americans only really start paying attention to the race in the last two or three months and really TUNE IN to the race with the presidential debates.

      kneejerk negative reactions to the name bush can be overcome the same way obama overcame kneejerk negative reactions to his name. when people tuned into the race and assesed him on tv and in debates. that's when their deeper visceral judgements took place, the 'likeability' factor kicked into gear.

      you make a mistake projecting YOUR deep visceral rejection of the name bush onto the larger public.
      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Sun, February 26, 2012 - 11:03 AM
        I don't know about a brokered convention, but I think you have a really strong point here:

        "they aren't going to directly support bush. it'll be a reverse of the 2008 election with the right REALLY energized and the left dispirited and de-energized by the reality of obama."

        People need to realize that the base that voted for Bush before still thinks pretty highly of the Bush name, and would likely vote for another one in a heartbeat.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Sun, February 26, 2012 - 3:15 PM
          <People need to realize that the base that voted for Bush before still thinks pretty highly of the Bush name, and would likely vote for another one in a heartbeat.>

          a leftwingobamahbird in the hand is worth two in the bush :)
          ----kneeUwoorldordah
        • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Mon, February 27, 2012 - 9:35 AM
          that base is much smaller than you think.
          • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

            Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:52 AM
            <<that base is much smaller than you think.

            Indeed, and that base is slowly shrinking, with minorities gaining 2% in the population every Presidential election cycle. The Republican party is antiquated, with antiquated ideas that turn off young people, women, and minorities. Movements like the Tea Party are the last dying screams of a slowly decaying GOP. Either the party changes or American is going to move on past them.
        • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:43 AM
          <<People need to realize that the base that voted for Bush before still thinks pretty highly of the Bush name, and would likely vote for another one in a heartbeat.

          At least in the general election, theproblem is not the base, anybody running for President needs to appeal to more than just the right wing Bush wackos. Remember, Bush had a 23% approval rating (his base) when he left office, and that name is poison to most of the US electorate.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

            Mon, February 27, 2012 - 1:06 PM
            <At least in the general election, theproblem is not the base, anybody running for President needs to appeal to more than just the right wing Bush wackos. Remember, Bush had a 23% approval rating (his base) when he left office, and that name is poison to most of the US electorate.>

            "Paul picks up 15% of the vote from self-identified liberals." :)

            RASMUSSEN POLL

            Paul 43% Obama 41%
            Romney 45% Obama 43%
            Obama 45% Santorum 43%
            Obama 49% Gingrich 39%

            Rasmussen:
            For the first time ever, Texas Congressman Ron Paul leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.
            Paul has the biggest gender gap of any GOP hopeful. The libertarian congressman leads by 13 among men and trails by eight among women. Paul also picks up 15% of the vote from self-identified liberals.
          • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

            Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:00 PM
            "At least in the general election, theproblem is not the base, anybody running for President needs to appeal to more than just the right wing Bush wackos. Remember, Bush had a 23% approval rating (his base) when he left office, and that name is poison to most of the US electorate. "

            it's not 23% NOW.

            For three years the republicans watched obama adopt bush's policies one after another from foreign policy to economic policies. the national conversation is now which flavor of convervtive economic policy should the country go with. progressive policies aren't even in the picture.

            that''s not even delving into the rights notorious ability to max the cognitive dissonance meter without breaking a sweat or it's highly cultivated sheeplike tendencies.

            after three solid years of right wing media machine pounding in the message bush was right after all and the only cure for the countries ils are even MORE of the same.

            the day obama took office 39% of the country identified as democratic or democratic leaning and 21% as repulican or republican leaning. today that is reversed.

            bush's approval rating when he left office has squat to do with the 2012 election.


            • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

              Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:14 PM
              foreign policy has never, ever even remotely been about progressive policies.

              <the day obama took office 39% of the country identified as democratic or democratic leaning and 21% as repulican or republican leaning. today that is reversed.>

              according to who?

              www.gallup.com/poll/15194...ndents.aspx
              Democrats Maintain Edge in Party Identification in 2011

              There was a two-point increase in independent identification from 2010 (38%) to 2011 (40%). The increase in independent identification came at the expense of Republican identification, which dropped from 29% to 27%, while Democratic identification held steady at 31%.

              The net result of those changes is an increase in the Democrats' advantage in party ID over Republicans, from two points to four points. However, that remains below the eight- (36% to 28%) and seven-point (34% to 27%) Democratic advantages in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

              More Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans in all but a few years since 1988.
              • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:35 PM
                And I think that this Dem avantage will continue unless the Republican party changes their plateform regarding minorities and immigration. The Demographics have been and are changing, with 2% more minorities every year.
            • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

              Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:19 PM
              <<"At least in the general election, theproblem is not the base, anybody running for President needs to appeal to more than just the right wing Bush wackos. Remember, Bush had a 23% approval rating (his base) when he left office, and that name is poison to most of the US electorate. "

              it's not 23% NOW. <>

              Do you have a current poll on GW Bush's approval rating in order to back that claim up?

              <<For three years the republicans watched obama adopt bush's policies one after another from foreign policy to economic policies. the national conversation is now which flavor of convervtive economic policy should the country go with. progressive policies aren't even in the picture.

              You are working under a two year old paradigm here d'zoner, things have changed signifantly since the 2010 elections. The conversation has changed to a progressive advantage, with the income divide and the loopholes for the rich being the predominant aspect of our national conversation now. The Tea Party itself has sunk considerably in their approval ratings, the GOP base is less than motivated (as is demosntrated by their extremely low voter turnout in the priaries). Join us in 2012, the advantage is currently Obama and trending toward progressive and Democratic policies.
      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Mon, February 27, 2012 - 9:26 AM
        um, no, i don't. it's a public perception otherwise i think bush would have run and won with no problems at all.

        of course, in july 2003, when obama was little more than a state senator, nobody would have picked him to become president. i'm sure while george w. bush was binge drinking his way through yale, nobody thought, "there goes the future president!" in 2004, after his speech at the boston convention is when it became a reality that he'd become president.

        you may think that just because people start paying attention in the last 2 months, that it means he would have a chance. you forget that he'll also be up against a machine that fully supports barack obama for president. there's no way the republicans can put into place and change enough minds in 2 months to actually make jeb bush a legitimate contender for president.

        i mean, seriously. do you think that republicans have been sitting in their offices thinking, "how can we win the election in 2012? oh, i know! let's run a bunch of schmucks during primary season, have them beat up on each other, and then when the convention rolls around, not choose any of them, choose jeb bush, and then we'll definitely win the presidency!" it's ludicrous.

        again, this is a great parlor game for the internet and people disenchanted with the republican field. i still think it's going to be obama v romney.
        • we don't need no steenkin MACHINES!!!

          Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:10 PM
          <you forget that he'll also be up against a machine that fully supports barack obama for president. >

          ?? what 'machine'?
          • Re: we don't need no steenkin MACHINES!!!

            Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:16 PM
            um, the entire democratic party and the millions of dollars his campaign has raised so far this cycle. if you are in a straight-red or straight-blue state, you probably won't feel much of its effects since youre already locked up. move to ohio, pennsylvania, or any other swing state and you'll be inundated by obama support ads and/or romney/santorum/schmuck attack ads. don't forget about obama's super pac also.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Fri, March 2, 2012 - 6:40 PM
          <i still think it's going to be obama v romney.>

          you're not the only one-- gold man sachs thinks so too they are "caring" for them both :)

          goldmanobamacare and goldmanromneycare
      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:41 AM
        <<kneejerk negative reactions to the name bush

        Nothing kneejerk about it, the family is as corrupt as they come.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Fri, March 2, 2012 - 6:32 PM
          B =bush O= obama = BO:) "the family as corrupt as they come"-- mafiaocracy :-D

          <Nothing kneejerk about it, the family is as corrupt as they come. >
          Tom Frank's book, The Wrecking Crew explains how the Bush administration destroyed effective government and damaged our social fabric and our economy. The Obama administration has chosen to reward two of the worst leaders of Bush's crew -- Geithner and Bernanke -- with promotion and reappointment. Embracing the Wrecking Crew's most destructive members has further damaged the economy and caused increasing political and moral injury to the administration.
          www.huffingtonpost.com/willia...40.html

          Obama Has Prosecuted Less Financial Fraud than Reagan and Both Bush Presidents
          www.wealthwire.com/news/finance/2269
    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

      Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:30 AM
      <<as much as the left has disagreed with obama's policies, i don't see them turning out in droves to support another bush. sorry, it just ain't happening.

      Beyond the fact that you are going to have a pissed off segment of the GOP electorate if their candidate wins but another candidate is chosen at the convention. The Republican party is already imploding, this would ruin them in my opinion.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Sat, February 25, 2012 - 10:43 PM
    <the wealthy elite power brokers (eliticons) at the very top are acutely aware of this. their decision will be who do they think can best accomplish that final critical implmentation. >

    Confirmed Speakers:www.aipac.org/

    President of the United States Barack Obama
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
    Israeli President Shimon Peres
    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
    House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
    Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
    Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
    Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
    ...and many more!
    Newton Gingrich
    www.aipac.org/pc
  • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:25 AM
    <<the reality clock has run out or is running out on a number of manmade disasters-in-waiting where the shit will hit the fan in struly stupendous ways and the next president will be tasked with implementing the all out police state oligarchy needed to keep the masses sufficiently trodden and the rich and powerful safe and secure

    You have been saying the clock is running out for YEARS d'zoner, you say the sky is falling every election cycle. I don't buy it.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

      Fri, March 2, 2012 - 6:19 PM
      <You have been saying the clock is running out for YEARS d'zoner, you say the sky is falling every election cycle. I don't buy it.>

      blue-state wide-awake washington voters hearing now in 2012 what it was they thought they had heard and voted BO for in 2008. :)
      hear the hooping, hollering and clapping:

      www.youtube.com/watch
  • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Mon, February 27, 2012 - 3:21 PM
    << the reality clock has run out or is running out on a number of manmade disasters-in-waiting where the shit will hit the fan in struly stupendous ways and the next president will be tasked with implementing the all out police state oligarchy needed to keep the masses sufficiently trodden and the rich and powerful safe and secure.

    that's hard cold reality. >>

    "Hard cold reality" and "Epically mixed metaphor describing a historically impossible stasis" looks an awful lot alike.
    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

      Mon, February 27, 2012 - 10:39 PM
      "Hard cold reality" and "Epically mixed metaphor describing a historically impossible stasis" looks an awful lot alike."

      it's moot now. enough pieces have fallen into place to make it certain obama has committed to a war with iran.

      war IS coming and it IS coming by the end of summer and it IS going to be accompanied by the final stages of implementation of a police state.




      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

        Wed, February 29, 2012 - 9:18 AM
        <<it's moot now. enough pieces have fallen into place to make it certain obama has committed to a war with iran.

        Your grandious predictions are certainly good for a chuckle. The LAST thing Obama wants or will commit this country to is yet another war, it won't happen.
        • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

          Wed, February 29, 2012 - 10:26 AM
          <Your grandious predictions are certainly good for a chuckle. The LAST thing Obama wants or will commit this country to is yet another war, it won't happen. >

          because obama hasn't been a total subservient bitch of wall street?

          maybe it's because the foundation of wall street's most massive profit generator and worldwide financial hegemony, the dollar as the worlds sole reserve currency , isn't under sustained and increasing attack headed by the BRIC countries?

          or perhaps it's because the key to the lock on that status isn't the 'petro-dollar' and as long as iran stays 'rogue' it can't threaten that status?

          it certainly couldn't be obama has the brains god gave a squirrel and knows when to cut his losses, take his 'first black president' win and get the hell out of dodge while the getting is good? ... and make sure his blood brother republicans have a lock on the next presidency in the process?
          • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

            Wed, February 29, 2012 - 11:42 AM
            <<because obama hasn't been a total subservient bitch of wall street?

            It is a mixed bag d'zoner, so you are once again engaging in grand and exaggerated claims. As a matter of fact, wall street profits have been cut in half, with wall street saying "tightened oversight pressed by President Obama is the cause".
            Wall Street profits down by half

            Wall Street profits were down by half in 2011 and cash bonuses fell too — and many in the industry say tightened oversight pressed by President Barack Obama is the reason.

            Profits at banks and brokerage houses tumbled to $13.5 billion last year from $27.6 billion, according to a report out Wednesday from the Office of the New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. The report also found that average cash bonuses slid 13 percent to $121,000, while firms laid off 4,300 employees during the last nine months of 2011.


            “There’s still fallout from the financial crisis and anticipation of continued implementation of regulatory reform and changes,” DiNapoli said Wednesday, announcing the findings on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

            Financial-sector leaders had predicted that profits would be down as a result of adapting to hundreds of new rules imposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank reforms — regulations directed at preventing a repeat of the catastrophic meltdown that resulted in the massive federal bailouts.

            “This is a fundamental change we haven’t seen before and it’s because of Dodd-Frank,” said Tom Quaadman, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Market Competitiveness. “This is almost like the canary in the coal mine right now. Reduced profitability and job loss in the financial markets is the leading indicator that we’re losing our edge.”

            To comply with the rules, banks have closed internal trading desks and held cash in reserve that would have previously been invested in the markets. Industry trade groups have also fought back, filing lawsuits to prevent the implementation of restrictions on trading.

            But industry leaders have made clear that Dodd-Frank — which has yet to be fully implemented — is not the sole cause of declines in profitability at the broker-dealer arms of banks, which is the measure used by DiNapoli to determine “Wall Street” profitability.

            Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other firms noted in fourth quarter results that new regulations had dented revenues, but said lower trading volumes and reduced merger and acquisition activity due to a slow economy and less risk-taking were also very big factors.

            JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon, in remarks to investors on Tuesday, said regulations would not dent long-term profitability.

            “I’ll be damned if we don’t have record profits for the next year or two,” Dimon said, according to an account of his remarks in the Financial Times. He added that the reduction in investment banking revenue was “cyclical” and not a permanent shift based on regulatory changes.

            Jes Staley, who heads JPMorgan’s investment bank, said he believed the Volcker Rule portion of Dodd-Frank, which limits the ability of banks to engage in proprietary trading and to invest in hedge funds and private equity funds, would be watered down before it is implemented in July.

            In addition, the broader banking industry, outside of broker-dealer units, is strengthening. On Tuesday, the FDIC reported that commercial banks and savings institutions that it insures produced aggregate profit of $26.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011, up $4.9 billion from the $21.4 billion in net income in the fourth quarter of 2010.

            Continue Reading Text Size-+reset Listen The FDIC said it was the the 10th consecutive quarter that earnings have registered a year-over-year increase. Much of the gains came from lower provisions for loan losses, meaning banks see the economy improving and fewer people defaulting on credit cards, mortgages and other loans.

            That left many experts skeptical of the impact being attributed to Dodd-Frank.

            “Typical Wall Street, they blame everything on regulation,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group Better Markets. “The cost of complying with very modest financial regulation is minuscule compared to their tens of billions in revenues, profits and compensation. Those costs are also nothing compared to the benefit of preventing Wall Street from causing another financial crisis and sticking their hands in the pockets of American taxpayers for more bailouts.”

            The Republican presidential candidates have vowed to repeal Dodd-Frank, while Obama has argued that by reducing risks, the law should prevent the need for another massive government bailout.

            “If you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits,” he said in last month’s State of the Union address. “You’re required to write out a ‘living will’ that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail — because the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again.”

            DiNapoli defended the reforms as being positive in the long run by moving firms away from cash bonuses and toward stock options and deferred compensation.

            “More oversight, more transparency, reducing oversight, reducing leverage, if that means sustainable profits that are more predictable, that’s good for everyone,” he said.

            And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke assured a congressional panel Wednesday that regulators were trying to maximize the benefits of Dodd-Frank while minimizing its costs.

            “We understand that the specifics of the regulations make a big difference,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “It’s important to get the best results with the least burden.”

            www.politico.com/news/stor...73432.html
            • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

              Wed, February 29, 2012 - 11:56 AM
              P.S. I just want to add that it is a bit of a reach to go from the idea that Obama is in bed with Wall Street to that equaling war with Iran. The reason your predictions keep failing is because you overreach in your claims.
              • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                Wed, February 29, 2012 - 12:39 PM
                Dodd frank is still way insufficient though, because of lobbying from Wall Street, when George Soros is saying its been gutted and nowhere near sufficient you know that's true because of his in-depth knowledge of them markets and because he is hardly a raving lefty anti capitalist.

                That being said, the Idea of trusting any Republican i think its nuts, Obama is better than GOP, but the difference between the two is nowhere near enough.

                I think two things really are needed in America, either big reform of campaign funding, or a third party backed by large internet camapgins of some new kind that takes off in a kind of grass roots Occupy way. I dont think this situation in America is going to last forever. Though there is a third option of course Obama changes and goes to the left.

                I can actually see why Andrew says someone that isnt center or centre right, like a real left, will NEVER get in the white house, but he is only right in the last 30 or 40 years, not before that, and whats needed now in America to change that is big change. Maybe that will happen,but it has not happened yet.


                • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                  Wed, February 29, 2012 - 5:17 PM
                  <That being said, the Idea of trusting any Republican i think its nuts, Obama is better than GOP, but the difference between the two is nowhere near enough.>

                  if it did matter it doesn't anymore.

                  those running the american hegemony made the decision to start a war with iran. america's position in the region is steadily deteriorating and america's 'petro-dollar' status is the foundation the american hegemony rests upon and that status is coming under increasing threat with iran growing in military and regional power as the US is losing ground. the rapidly deteriorating situation in afghanistan only makes it more vital to swing the american people behind an all out effort.

                  the uus enterprise, due for decommissioning in 2013, has been sent into the persion gulf 'bathtub'. don't expect it to come back out. it's the perfect false flag incident to enflame american passion and swing them behind a war.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                    Thu, March 1, 2012 - 2:43 AM
                    d'zoner while there is a lot of truth in your argument, your not presenting the whole picture, and with Iran your ignoring at least half.

                    Your head of military has come out and said a strike on Iran would be "very unwise". Obama said something similar.

                    Right there you have a difference between republicans and democrats.

                    On Financial reform there is a lot more in what you say, but i think your ignoring some of the big and real difficulties getting things through congress.

                    I agree thats not the whole picture. Obama could have done a lot more in the early days geting things through congress when he had a better majority.

                    But i think he was scared to try and make big changes to that system while it was falling apart, and could have fell into a great depression. I think he is only half sold on the idea of BIG change too, and yes, i think he was too much of a marketing PR man, which is the way the US politics have gone for at least 30 years.

                    Should he do more, absolutely.

                    But as ive said a few times its also down to the American public to help make enough noise to drive that change.

                    I do think your anger is good though. Big change like in the 30s and 40s under FDR, and like in the 60s normaly comes with anger and noise, not quiet applause.

                    I still think something is going to come this year, Iran, the Euro, something, thats going to intensify desire for change somehow. Where i think your wrong about Obama is that then he may well ride that wave, not try and resist it , if it happens.

                    Its never easy for these kind of historic changes d'zoner. IN the 30s and 40s it took a huge great depression, much bigger than we have now, and the world war.

                    In the 60s it took a big youth demographic at a time of intense and rapid cultural change.

                    Ultmatily like you say a key thing that is going to help drive it is the loss of American dominance.
                    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                      Thu, March 1, 2012 - 9:57 AM
                      "d'zoner while there is a lot of truth in your argument, your not presenting the whole picture, and with Iran your ignoring at least half.

                      Your head of military has come out and said a strike on Iran would be "very unwise". Obama said something similar.

                      Right there you have a difference between republicans and democrats."

                      what obama and the military say means little. they both lie and obsfucate continuously. it's all part of the puppet show. these days the SUBSTATIVE difference between the republicans and democrats approaches zero. they both dance to the tune of wall street and the big banks.

                      the absolute bottom line, the CRUX of what is happen is this.

                      in order for the western monied elites to maintain their hegemony they have to maintain the american dollar as the world reserve currency and in order to do that they have to maintain the dollar as the medium oil is bought and sold in.

                      that reserve status is under mounting pressure and attack. iran is the key to re-asserting full control. control iran and ALL the north african, middle eastern and central asian oil continues to be traded in US dollars thus firmly keeping the US dollar firmly in place as the worlds reserve currency. which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits annually to the people profiting from that status. It enables them to buy up the worlds infrastructure and make the people pay for the priviledge of using it, buy up the worlds resouces and eat the lions share of profits while leaving the people the scraps.

                      This is the big game being played.

                      if one fails to see what's happening within this context, one is wandering among the trees pointing exitedly and exclaiming AHA!.

                      one way or another the ultra rich control the us government and most of the european governments and those governments are moving to implement their agenda. the only notable exception has been iceland ... a isolated tiny population social and economic outlier where the women took charge and protected their interests.

                      if you do not try to imagine the world through the eyes of the ultra rich ultra powerful elites you will not see the bigger picture.
                      • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                        Thu, March 1, 2012 - 10:52 AM
                        <<what obama and the military say means little.

                        It means everything. Remember Bush's drum beat for war with Iraq? Remember how agressively they sold that war of choice to Congress and the American public? That meant something, it took a serious propaganda machine to move forward with that war. Here we have no drum beat for war with Iran coming out of the White House, which gives us a big sign that your predictions are off the mark. As a matter of fact, it would take a MUCH bigger propaganda machine to convince the American public to support a war with Iran in the wake of the Iraq debacle.

                        <<in order for the western monied elites to maintain their hegemony they have to maintain the american dollar as the world reserve currency and in order to do that they have to maintain the dollar as the medium oil is bought and sold in.

                        Financial crisis waning, no such threat to the dollar exists anymore. Things have changed, please do catch up.

                        <<
                        if you do not try to imagine the world through the eyes of the ultra rich ultra powerful elites you will not see the bigger picture

                        It is still imagination land, so stop speaking as if your predictions are set in concrete fact.
                    • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                      Thu, March 1, 2012 - 10:45 AM
                      <<Your head of military has come out and said a strike on Iran would be "very unwise". Obama said something similar.

                      Exactly, they even released a report indicating that they don't think Iran is actively working on nukes. Hardly the drum beat of war coming out of Washington. Dzoner is lost in past paradigms, Bush and his drum beat for war is somehow being projected on to Obama by him. He is also evaluating the upcoming election as if it is still 2010 and a Republican takeover is imminent. Things have changed considerably.

                      <<But i think he was scared to try and make big changes to that system while it was falling apart,

                      As every medic will tell you, you have to stop the bleeding before you can repair the underlying wound.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                    Thu, March 1, 2012 - 10:38 AM
                    <<those running the american hegemony made the decision to start a war with iran.

                    Who?

                    <<<america's position in the region is steadily deteriorating

                    What do you mean by "position"? What position?

                    <<as the US is losing ground.

                    What ground are we losing? Can you be more specific? You are speaking in generalized buzzwords that really don't speak to the details of your claims.

                    <<the rapidly deteriorating situation in afghanistan only makes it more vital to swing the american people behind an all out effort.

                    How is a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan going to convicnce the American people to support yet another war? They won't, simple as that.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                      Fri, March 2, 2012 - 11:41 PM
                      <How is a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan going to convicnce the American people to support yet another war? They won't, simple as that.>

                      They did support Libiya though? It need not the convincing of the American people to support another war; it was a United Nations/Nato/al-Qae·da kinetic action. :)



              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                Wed, February 29, 2012 - 9:32 PM
                <P.S. I just want to add that it is a bit of a reach to go from the idea that Obama is in bed with Wall Street to that equaling war with Iran. The reason your predictions keep failing is because you overreach in your claims. >

                The overreach perhaps is that of problems of ending that started war; they will cost and they will be paid for by debt which is that what is in the bed with wall street. :-)

                mideastreality.blogspot.com/2010....html
            • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

              Wed, February 29, 2012 - 5:04 PM
              <It is a mixed bag d'zoner, so you are once again engaging in grand and exaggerated claims. As a matter of fact, wall street profits have been cut in half, with wall street saying "tightened oversight pressed by President Obama is the cause".
              Wall Street profits down by half >

              are you even aware this was in the article you referenced? ...

              "That left many experts skeptical of the impact being attributed to Dodd-Frank.

              “Typical Wall Street, they blame everything on regulation,” said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group Better Markets. “The cost of complying with very modest financial regulation is minuscule compared to their tens of billions in revenues, profits and compensation. Those costs are also nothing compared to the benefit of preventing Wall Street from causing another financial crisis and sticking their hands in the pockets of American taxpayers for more bailouts.”

              ............................................

              care to try and obsfucate that away?
              • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

                Thu, March 1, 2012 - 10:28 AM
                <<"That left many experts skeptical of the impact being attributed to Dodd-Frank.

                Of course, it does not change anything I said. Reality or no, Wall Street does not view Obama as being friendly to their greedy endeavors, let alone him being a Wall Street puppet.

                <<Those costs are also nothing compared to the benefit of preventing Wall Street from causing another financial crisis and sticking their hands in the pockets of American taxpayers for more bailouts

                Obama is not going to wage war on Iran, and he is certainly not going to be bailing anyone out.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

              Wed, February 29, 2012 - 9:38 PM
              <“We understand that the specifics of the regulations make a big difference,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee. “It’s important to get the best results with the least burden.” >

              As a result of the pressure on the legislature and the constant talks of overturning the act, it was finally repealed. On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.

              econc10.bu.edu/Ec341_mone...e_paper.htm
  • Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Tue, February 28, 2012 - 3:44 AM
    <another advantage jeb would have is he would be so trusted and liked by the right and the right would be so RELIEVED to have him as their candidate, jeb could actually move slightly to the left of obama on many issues and still keep the right motivated behind him>

    I don't think so. There's no way that a Republican can win without their far right. So...he'd have to play to them as these current idiots do. PLUS - he's not at all anywhere close to center-Left where he'd have to be to move where you suggest. He can't just change his spots during an election.

    <and obama will see the writing on the wall and find a way to bow out one way or another.>

    Obama - unless he does something incredibly stupid, or the masses of far-Lefties don't vote - will win no matter what Republican runs against him. They have just damaged themselves so much recently.

    <i figured he's take his win and exit 'gracefully' before the shit really started hitting the fan in 2012-2016. you know, when 'extend and pretend' kinda stops working for realsies and oil production starts declining.>

    Sounds like conspiracy-esque kinda thinking to me. He wants to truly do a good job, so he'll keep trying to the last day.

    <that would include a number of ex-military types with deep knowledge and experience in delivering lethal force from a distance.>

    Dude...y'r kidding, right? You really think that assassination is on the table? That's crazy. There are always crazies out there, but so common as what you describe? Come on now...

    <obama would very stupid to try to win another four years into the teeth of such explosive, and personally dangerous to him and his family, times when he can retire into a massive payout from a grateful wealthy elite.>

    Except; of course, that he truly believes in what he's doing.

    <as much as the left has disagreed with obama's policies, i don't see them turning out in droves to support another bush. sorry, it just ain't happening.>

    Yup.

    <you make a mistake projecting YOUR deep visceral rejection of the name bush onto the larger public.>

    You make a mistake for rejecting YOUR misunderstanding for the "deep visceral rejection of the name bush" from the larger public.

    <i still think it's going to be obama v romney.>

    I don't think that there's any question. Santorum just is burning out as we speak. He has a few weeks until his unfavorables go sky-high.

    <if you keep saying it ad nauseum and then it comes true, then you can crown yourself the new nostradamus.>

    So goddamned true. One of those, 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day' kind of things. Obama will have to really blow it to allow Republican X to beat him.

    <war IS coming and it IS coming by the end of summer and it IS going to be accompanied by the final stages of implementation of a police state.>

    OH! Shit. I thought that we were having a real conversation. Shit! Sorry.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: the REAL politics of the 2012 election

    Tue, February 28, 2012 - 11:36 PM
    Watch LIVE on CSPAN 3.

    On Wednesday, February 29th, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appears before the House Financial Services Committee.

    Hearing entitled "Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy"
    Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:00 AM in 2128 Rayburn HOB
    Full Committee

    Witness List

    * The Honorable Ben Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
    financialservices.house.gov/Cale....aspx

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"