06-11-2002 13:58									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Mad... nahhh... just having fun with somebody making broad generalizations and throwing around insults based soley on people disagreeing with his opinion of things. It's always fun to troll people who are so sure of themselves, even when they are wrong

	06-11-2002 20:37									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that.

Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it.

If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point.

-Arrian

	06-11-2002 20:56									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"His foreign policy is just plain bad."

His foreign policy is where he has the most support and where his team has the most experience. So if it's bad, then I suggest you could expect the very same policies (although not as competently prosecuted) from a lefty Dem.

Well, a Dem would make a lot more promises that he couldn't keep. Like extension of Kyoto or other silliness.

	06-11-2002 22:07									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Tassadar5000 Also handing over a complete government to a leader who has made the economy worse and completly turned world opinion against us

The economic dowtern began during cClitons term, nearly a year befor Bush ws inagurated. With the typical reposnse time of the economy, government factors causing the downturn, if any, would hav been yet a year before that, sometime in 1999.

	06-11-2002 22:08									#65
	Got spare money?

GePap: Here's an international take on the issue:

quote: What explains his success? First, the quality of his opposition. Apparently still in shock over the non-defeat of 2000, where they felt the presidential election was stolen from them, Democrats have struggled to find their voice. Their national leaders, **** Gephardt in the House and Tom Daschle in the Senate, are solid but uninspiring: neither was able to tour the nation, building genuine momentum. Nor has the party generated much in the way of new talent. Two years after Bush Sr lost the White House in 1992, the Republicans had already developed a new programme and a radical new leadership, in the person of Newt Gingrich. There is no Democrat equivalent. On the contrary, the Democrats had to turn back to their past in this election, putting up 78-year-old Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey and 74-year-old Walter Mondale in Minnesota. Their best campaigner was not a new face, but an old president: Clinton. More crucially, the Democrats failed to craft a single, winning theme for this election. It should have been the economy, which is certainly suffering. But that message did not get through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,834573,00.html

	06-11-2002 22:31									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in.

That might be true. But I can't help noticing how the stock market ticker falls every time Bush opens his mouth on CNN.

Bush, IMO, is doing some things that are undermining consumer confidence and the economy. One is the constant talk of impending war and the notion that the country is now mired in an endless "war" on terrorism. This does absolutely nothing to instill long-term confidence and economic momentum.

Second is the lack of bite in his corporate reform bill, and the public perception that his appointees and special interests are a big part of the problem. How
does market confidence get restored when the SEC chairman was a lobbyist for the very interests that caused the problem, and is now forced to resign? How does secrecy on the part of **** Cheney's energy task force restore investor confidence in these markets. It's a mess

Third, making economic policy based on unrealistic trends and projections. Clinton, if anything, underestimated economic growth in formulation budgets and economic proposals, and when projections were more optimistic, the administration and markets were given that much more confidence.

Back to work

	06-11-2002 22:53									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The Republican Senate canidate in Georgia won largely because he painted the Dem, Max Cleland - a veteran triple amputee, as weak on defense.

So if you lost three limbs suddenly you are always strong on defense? Please...

And this election was a signal. The Dems failed greatly. They didn't offer anything, and the popularity of Bush won a staggering amount of races, especially after his unprecedented political gamble of campaigning days before a midterm election.

	06-11-2002 23:24									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

	06-11-2002 23:46									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

and he won the Bronze Star and the Silver star for valor in combat

	06-11-2002 23:50									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Arrian If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point. -Arrian

I hardly doubt that Americans are the only one "stupid". Russians had already fallen for the freak Shirinovski once, and are now following on Putin about just everything.

Germany's parties are so uninspiring that voters had no choice but to give the ineffective Schroeder a second term.

If you can just tell me one democratic country in this world in which only few complain about their government, my hat off to you.

My conclusion is that everyone is stupid.

	06-11-2002 23:51									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War."

And we can honor his sacrifice, but that doesn't mean he can't hold a position that people think is detrimental to the security of this country.

	07-11-2002 00:48									#72
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: He lost three limbs in the Vietnam War.

Yeah, I know... what is your point?

Just because you lost three limbs in Vietnam doesn't mean that you can't be taken to task on your vies on defense. For the Dems to call it an outrage that that was done is pretty silly. I didn't know that it was forbidden to ask questions of him on that .

	07-11-2002 00:59									#73
	Support Apolyton

Well, Dem. figureheads have a record of dodging drafts. Apparently the party base is unfamiliar with candidates being attacked even when they don't.

	07-11-2002 01:49									#74
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I do believe that Max Cleland is much more familiar with the cost of warfare than a good deal of our leaders are.

You don't lose three frickin' limbs and earn military commendations and *not* learn a thing or two about just how frickin' bloody war is. And, yes, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if those memories would make the man think twice (or thrice) about sending our young men and women into potential meatgrinders overseas.

As for my home state — South Dakota — it appears that Sen. Tim Johnson (D) has come out on top by the grand total of 528 votes or so. I expect that there will be a recount request made by Rep. John Thune (R) shortly. So we won't know who our senator is until probably December.

Gatekeeper

	07-11-2002 02:00									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think a recount in S.D. is mandatory, as the margin of victory is within .25% of the total number of ballots.

	07-11-2002 02:03									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Winston:

Yep, it's mandatory by law. I just hope that's all that's asked for ... a statewide recount. None of this Florida 2000 crap.

Gatekeeper

	07-11-2002 02:05									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The average American has a pretty distorted, sanitized view of defense and war in general. Things like missile defense are abstract, beyond people's technical comprehension, and pretty easily spun into nice, pretty packages.

Real combat is presented abstractly - we don't let reporters cover it, so realities of crispy critters, shake and bake, etc. aren't shown. Casualties on our side of the fence are fairly few and far between, and again, we mask the full impact with lots of pomp and ceremony.

When you've got real, proven, manly warriors like Bush, Cheney, Lott and Rice thumping them drums, people don't want a washed up cripple from that old, failed war we'd rather forget about reminding us that maybe, it ain't always gonna be a good show like the CNN version of the Gulf war and Afghanistan. We want news reports of our boys under our fearless leaders thumping those dirty ragheads. The occaisional somber flag-draped coffin being greeted by the President when it's flown into Andrews is an acceptable price, but let's not get too complicated or realistic about things.

American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding. Most countries are as bad or worse, but they at least have the mitigating factor that their militaries are a very small part of their policy apparatus and budget. In the US, the significance of defense and defense policy is proportionately larger than in any other country in the world with a representative government, but people don't want to be bothered with it, they just want a show on CNN and our leaders to take care of it for them.

	07-11-2002 02:10									#78
	Increase Your PM Length

Gatekeeper,
Yes let's hope so.

BTW, did Tom Daschle do any kind of campaigning or endorsing for Tim Johnson in South Dakota? And is it customary for your state to elect two Democrats for Senate, seeing as Johnson was the incumbent?

	07-11-2002 02:13									#79
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding.

It's also typically one of the least cared about aspects of picking a candidate. How else do you explain some of the choices we've made for President, etc.?

	07-11-2002 02:14									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in. Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that. Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it. If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point. -Arrian

By george I think he's got it

	07-11-2002 02:23									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: American ignorance about foreign policy, geopolitics and military strategy is astounding. Most countries are as bad or worse, but they at least have the mitigating factor that their militaries are a very small part of their policy apparatus and budget. In the US, the significance of defense and defense policy is proportionately larger than in any other country in the world with a representative government, but people don't want to be bothered with it...

*snip*

Well said. As usual.

-Arrian

p.s. Merciless, I agree. Stupidity does not recognize national borders.

	07-11-2002 02:35									#82
	Put an end to popups!

I don't buy the stupidity argument. It's just an easy way to make excuses for the fact that people don't agree with you. Oh yes, it must be THEIR stupidity...

WRT ignorance about foreign affairs and naivete about the brutality of war, this is probably so. I don't care to watch crispy critters on TV every night and would prefer some sort of abstraction. Just like we no longer hang 'em high in the town square.

I would note that the criteria upon which American candidates are chosen are not wonkish at all. Perceived leadership is prized. In other words, even if Americans knew the details cold, I'm skeptical that it would change their political choices.

Also, I would note that foreign affairs have been covered relatively quite heavily in the US press since 9/11, and Americans seem genuinely interested in the topic.

	07-11-2002 02:38									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Winston Well, Dem. figureheads have a record of dodging drafts. Apparently the party base is unfamiliar with candidates being attacked even when they don't.

Actually Winston, the opposite is true. While Democrats have the reputation of being draft dogers, it tends more often to be Repulbicans who actually dodged: George Bush, Gingrich, Quayle, etc.

	07-11-2002 02:42									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Why is it, exactly, that people think the President controls the economy? Or the government in general, for that matter. The only effect the government has on the economy is indirect, and usually takes a while to kick in. Capitalism, for all of its benifits, does have a downside: Marx saw it, though he overestimated its negative effects. A capitalist economy is cyclical in nature. Boom, followed by Bust, then back to Boom, and so on and so forth. The government, as it is currently set up in the US, can only have a limited effect on that. Yet time and again, Presidents get popularity boosts in times of prosperity and suffer the opposite when times are tight. Even though they have very little to do with it. If you wanted to argue that Americans are stupid, Tass, THAT would be a good point. -Arrian

Thank you Arrian for saying what I've always said. Presidents have very limitted power to effect economies.

In their economic toolbags of influence on the economy are: trying to infleuence manage the money supply (Arguably Greenspan is the real mover and shaker)

Attempting to lessen taxes (via less governement spending which arguably results in less gov jobs thus leading to unemployment thus choking the economy and consumer confidence).

Attempting to increase gov jobs via public works programs (arguably increasing tax burdens thus choking the economy)

Attempt to encourage investment into the US industries by making regulations, executive orders, etc. as painless as possible to investors thus creating jobs.

Attempting to inspire confidence to stimulate consumer spending.

Aside from that theres not a lot the President can do.

There has been this falicy that FDR was able to single handedly bring hope and curb the effect of the depression via massive gov programs. To a limited extent this is true. He was at most able to inspire a bit of confidence in the US populace that the government was trying something different. In reality the US had a slight recovery that would have backslid were it not for the onset of WW2. This arguably was the greatest involvement a US president had on an economy (and in order to do so he initiated Huge gov spending programs).

Now arguably those some programs allowed great development of infrastructure for subsequent generations to enjoy ( road systems, more widely distributed electricity etc.)

The point being even if a President was capable of making a policy that had a dramatic impact (at a huge change to the government system as it stands) the impact to the economy is negligible (at least in the short term taking FDR's infrastructure advancements as an example). All a President can really try to do is stand on the sidelines and be a cheerleader and attempt to rally consumer confidence.

In Bush's defense (and yes I think he has blundred a bit as well), he has made in my estimation a concerted effort to try to rally conusmer confidence to overcome obstacles of 9/11, corporate leadership misdeeds, and the spectre of Iraqi war. I see little else of any effect that he could try to do.

OTOH, I am not especially pleased about the carte blanche he will enjoy to appoint judges of his choosing as I am an avid Pro-choicer.

	07-11-2002 02:49									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc It's also typically one of the least cared about aspects of picking a candidate. How else do you explain some of the choices we've made for President, etc.?

It is probably the least cared about aspect, but with this vague war on terrorism, increased globalisation, the US economy's dependence on global issues, it's going to be increasingly costly to continue the same degree of apathy.

	07-11-2002 03:00									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Winston BTW, did Tom Daschle do any kind of campaigning or endorsing for Tim Johnson in South Dakota? And is it customary for your state to elect two Democrats for Senate, seeing as Johnson was the incumbent?

Daschle didn't get overtly involved in Johnson's re-election campaign until the final month or so. That's when they began appearing together from time to time and Daschle began airing ads about the good team he and Johnson are in Washington, D.C., and how the former's slot as Senate Majority Leader and the latter's slot on the Appropriations Committee were twin boons for a state that, usually, has little impact on Washington politics (and that's a run-on sentence). IOW, the Daschle-Johnson duo would be able to keep issues that affected South Dakota on the front burner in D.C.

Of course now that may be altered a bit, what with Daschle apparently returning to his slot as the Senate Minority Leader.

As for electing senators, there's an old saying in our state: We send the Dems to Washington to bring home the moolah, and we elect the GOP for state offices so the money can be spent/saved wisely.

I don't think it's a "tradition" yet to have both Senate seats occupied simutaneously by Dems. Back in 1994, then Rep. Tim Johnson (D) was going up against Sen. Larry Pressler (R), who had been in Washington for years and, thus, had clout that our state could use. Johnson defeated Pressler by a few thousand votes. Now it appears Johnson may hang on to his seat by no more than a few hundred votes — IOW, Thune tried to do in 2002 (he was hand-picked by Bush to try and unseat Johnson) what Johnson did in 1994, but came up short. Folks are saying that's because the Dems were successful in getting the Native Americans on our state's reservations out to vote in large numbers. They usually don't have as good a partcipation level in federal elections, but the Dems changed that. That 527 or so vote lead Johnson has over Thune is probably due to the Native American voters and Republicans who crossed party lines and voted for Johnson.

Gatekeeper

	07-11-2002 03:14									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes I heard that Thune had his heart set on the Governor race, but that he was tapped by GOP leaders to run against Johnson for Senate in hopes of regaining control there. What a bummer it must be for him personally if yesterdays' result stands after the recount. From the Governor poll numbers, you'd think he could've won that comfortably.

Tom Daschle can't be too pleased either though, to say the least.

Thanks for the interesting insights.

	07-11-2002 03:17									#88
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The Democrats are not a 'failed party'. Come here and see the Conservatives if you want to see a 'failed party'

	07-11-2002 03:27									#89
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Come here and see the Conservatives if you want to see a 'failed party'

Labor seems to be doing just fine PH.

	07-11-2002 03:37									#90
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't buy the stupidity argument. It's just an easy way to make excuses for the fact that people don't agree with you. Oh yes, it must be THEIR stupidity...

Well, it is. Whatever the issue, just remember that half the electorate has a two-digit IQ.

quote: WRT ignorance about foreign affairs and naivete about the brutality of war, this is probably so. I don't care to watch crispy critters on TV every night and would prefer some sort of abstraction. Just like we no longer hang 'em high in the town square. I would note that the criteria upon which American candidates are chosen are not wonkish at all. Perceived leadership is prized. In other words, even if Americans knew the details cold, I'm skeptical that it would change their political choices.

With an unsophisticated electorate, perceived leadership hinges more on slogans, spin, sound bites and charisma. Mind you, the Dems have been lacking on all of the above for a good while now.

A more sophisticated electorate would have the ability to burn through a lot of the BS and see how much of the projected image of leadership is based on real leadership, and how much on typical political campaign tools.

quote: Also, I would note that foreign affairs have been covered relatively quite heavily in the US press since 9/11, and Americans seem genuinely interested in the topic.

Unfortunately, most of it is still in the Gary Cooper and John Wayne (or Stallone, if that's the generational preference) vs. the dirty ragheads vein. More people know what continent Afghanistan is on than did before, yes, but background like how the Taleban-NA shitfest was really an extension of Indo-Pakistani rivalry, or the relative precariousness and double-dealing by our purported allies are still beyond the scope.

To negotiate effectively, you need to know how the other guy perceives things, and what he believes his interests to be. How much do we know (or care) about the Saudi's national interests (whether the man in the street, the royals, the mullahs) or the Pakistanis'?