US Presidential Contenders

[Unorthodox]

Oh lovely.  NPR just mentioned that it's Still Dead Day.   Let us not discuss it, but I was sick of that in 2003 2001.  Couldn't turn on the TV for about a week in September for years.

Twas a conspiracy! 

[Buster's Uncle]

I wouldn't put ANYthing past the Cheney Bund at this late date, but they simply weren't ready to take advantage.  QED.

[Buster's Uncle]

FEC Implements One-Year Break Between All Presidential Terms As Reprieve For Weary Nation
The Onion  Vol 51 Issue 36  September 11, 2015



FEC officials say Americans will even receive a recuperative 12-month break in between the terms of a reelected president.



WASHINGTON—In an effort to address the frustration, fatigue, and utter despair felt by voters, the Federal Election Commission issued a directive Friday that mandates a break of one full year between each presidential term as a respite for the weary American people.

After enduring a presidential campaign cycle that can exceed two years, as well as ceaseless media coverage of whichever politician is currently occupying the nation’s highest post, citizens become so tired and depressed that, according to FEC officials, a president-free period of 12 months must be built into the calendar so the electorate has sufficient time to recover.

“The complaint we receive most frequently from voters is that they feel completely drained going through presidency after presidency without any kind of break,” said FEC chair Ann M. Ravel, explaining that the ideal for many citizens would be a year’s reprieve from all presidential press conferences, any photograph taken inside or outside the White House, or ever hearing the word “president” spoken aloud. “These off years will allow Americans to rest and regain their bearings before having to endure another four-year cycle of the same old photo ops, talking points, and stalemates with Congress.”

“That’s something that, we believe, everyone who has cast a presidential ballot has earned,” Ravel added.

Because it is too late to spare citizens from the campaign already in progress, government sources confirmed that the first year-long hiatus will take place in the year 2020. At that time, the FEC will ensure the Oval Office remains completely empty and will put a stop to all fundraising, polling, public speeches, reporting, opinion pieces, punditry, direct-mail solicitations, and television ads relating to any president or presidential candidate for 365 consecutive days.

Across the country, beleaguered and despondent Americans voiced their support for the FEC’s decision, saying they have spent their whole lives staring at an unending parade of faces of actual or would-be commanders-in-chief, with nowhere to turn to escape their slogans and carefully manicured personas. Many expressed hope that a year of recuperation will allow them not only to mentally recover somewhat, but also to steel themselves for the four years of State of the Union addresses, executive orders, and general presidential news coverage that will follow.

“Seeing all these TV and newspaper reports about whatever the current president just did or might do, hearing months and months of speculation about whether some guy’s gonna run or not—it will be the most amazing thing in the world to have a break from all that,” Columbus, OH resident Caroline Helling said. “I would love, absolutely love, to stop hearing a candidate’s sound bite on loop in the media, then hearing the other side overreacting and denouncing the sound bite, then seeing all the thinkpieces that come out about the overreaction, then having to go through the same [poop]all over again the next day.”

“It’ll be great to just power through the next few years and make it to this time off,” she continued. “As far as I can see, the only downside is that it’s going to be really hard to go back to having a president after we get a year away from it.”

Kent McNamara, a 52-year-old registered voter from Seattle, told reporters that when the Founding Fathers set forth the powers of the executive branch in Article Two of the Constitution, they never intended for the American presidency to become “this [intercourse gerund]exhausting for everybody.”

“You know, even when I like the president, I still need a break from all the bull[poop]that surrounds him,” McNamara said. “The automatic backlash to everything the president says, the manufactured scandals, the opposition’s refusal to let him accomplish anything worthwhile because they don’t want his party getting credit for it—it’s pretty much just as annoying having a president I like as it is having one I hate.”

“Jeez, maybe one year isn’t enough,” he added.

The FEC confirmed that if the presidential program works well, it plans to reduce the number of days each Congress is in session to five per year, eventually phasing it out altogether.

http://www.theonion.com/article/fec-implements-one-year-break-between-all-presiden-51295


An absolute moratorium on campaigning, mentioning campaigning and speculating about campaigning for president until one (1) year before the election would satisfy me, and I'm not joking.  -It's one of those things unworkable (and utterly unconstitutional) as a rule/law that would take a societal consensus to work.

Repeat:  I'm not joking.  Absolutely everybody would prefer a one-year presidential campaign cycle to the perpetual campaign afflicting us all for over a decade now thanks to living in the future with cable news and magic communications tech.  That a reasonable-length cycle favors the well-funded is very unfortunate, but 'twouldn't be no change, now, would it?

[Rusty Edge]

Well, Rick Perry is officially out.

Walker has faded to 3% in Iowa, that's 10th place, and he's the local guy.


Apparently what he's doing is working worse than what he was doing before. He's sponsored by the Koch Brothers, so he's going to last in the race until the convention, if that's what they wish.

[Buster's Uncle]

God, those two Bossmen probably don't do as much harm as Rupert Murdock, but it's not for a lack of trying and loathesome causes/candidates and hundreds of millions invested.

We need to come up with a word for Robber Baron right-of-Hitler openly-corrupt naked-power-in-your-face politics of the Cheney/Murdock/Koch sort that won't make people as mad as when I call them Nazis like they deserve.


ABC ran a story about whether Biden will give in and run this evening.  I didn't actually listen, because Biden - he's already lost three times and is officially a loser.  I'd hate to be him and want to be president as bad as he must, with that anyone but Hillary thing taunting me to sleep at night, but he needs to get off the pot six months ago, or not spoil it for Sanders.

[Yitzi]

God, those two Bossmen probably don't do as much harm as Rupert Murdock, but it's not for a lack of trying and loathesome causes/candidates and hundreds of millions invested.

We need to come up with a word for Robber Baron right-of-Hitler openly-corrupt naked-power-in-your-face politics of the Cheney/Murdock/Koch sort that won't make people as mad as when I call them Nazis like they deserve.

Now, they're bad, but not so far as to deserve to be called "Nazis", since they don't actually favor killing innocent people.  As for a term, what's wrong with reusing "Robber barons"?

[Buster's Uncle]

It's not within an order of magnitude ugly enough to begin to reflect their hatefulness.

They support every anti-progress, anti-tolerance, anti-freedom measure you can find out there faintly on the outskirts of the mainstream.  Cheney is Cheney.  Murdock has made his fortune spreading trash, sleeze and lies, and nothing but.  The Koch brothers threatened their employees with massive layoffs if Obama was reelected, which should be a felony.  All do everything they can to undermine democracy.  They are the enemies of freedom and they are the friends of greed, corruption and coercion.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

[Buster's Uncle]

Bobby… What's His Name? That Guy Who Hates [Sleezebag]?
Jindal is the saddest Republican.
Splice Today
Noah Berlatsky  Sep 11, 2015, 09:48AM






Of all the sad Republican presidential candidates, Bobby Jindal’s the saddest.

Presidential candidates crave attention like flies crave fresh dung. Without news coverage, polls lag, and donors don't even know you exist, much less where to send you money. A presidential candidate without news coverage is nowhere. That's why Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry are nude Jello-wrestling each other for the privilege of standing next to a county clerk. Does either much care if Kim Davis goes to prison for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Of course they don't care. But they know someone is pointing a camera at Davis. They want to be in front of that camera, nude Jello and all.

Obviously, the main person in front of the camera these days is [Sleezebag]. When [Sleezebag] sees a camera a complex scientific process takes place involving the bilious gases in his gut and jowls and he expands and expands. That’s the power of [Sleezebag]. Once his inflated bulk has reached full Trumpness, there’s no room for anyone else to stand anywhere amidst the fumes and bluster. Better to be hit by a tree than befouled by the wake of a reality star.

So, what do you do if you're a piddling little presidential pipsqueak with no gas in your jowls? How can you [Sleezebag] the [Sleezebag]? The answer is clear. All the media cares about is [Sleezebag]. So provide them with [Sleezebag] content. The media will have to pay attention to you then.

The scheme is so obvious it's surprising that all the desperate GOP Lilliputians, from Christie to Kasich to what's-his-name, haven't tried it already. But Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week is giving it a go.  Jindal’s been paddling around in the bottom bit of the bottom bit of the Republican field; in first debate back in early August, his poor polling relegated him to the second-tier runner up debate, where he was outshone by Carly "never-held-public-office" Fiorina.

So in a desperate bid for relevancy, Jindal’s gone on an anti-[Sleezebag] offensive. In the last 48 hours, he's called [Sleezebag] an "unstable narcissist," and mocked [Sleezebag]'s inability to pick a favorite Bible verse ("[Sleezebag] hasn't read the Bible because he's not in it"). Jindal's campaign manager rather bizarrely said, "Charlie Sheen is clearly Donald [Sleezebag]'s spirit animal," which doesn't make a ton of sense, but sure sounds mean.

I'm all for people elaborately insulting [Sleezebag], and Jindal's gambit seems sound. It's humiliating to sink to schoolyard taunts, but if you had any dignity, you wouldn't be running for president anyway. Jindal's pugnacious piffle is getting a lot of press, and if only [Sleezebag] will respond in kind, the Louisiana governor is in with a chance to get those poll numbers up and sneak into the adult-table debate. You can't blame a guy for trying.

Here's the sad part, though. Check out this Business Insider link about Jindal insulting [Sleezebag]. Notice the headline? It reads, "Rival campaign says Charlie Sheen is Donald [Sleezebag]'s 'spirit animal.'" Or this post from the same publication: "Rival unloads on 'egomaniacal madman' Donald [Sleezebag], says he hasn't read the Bible 'because he's not in it.'"

"Rival campaign." "Rival unloads." Business Insider’s editorial has apparently decided that Jindal is so irrelevant, so unknown, that putting him in the headline would just confuse readers. They know who [Sleezebag] is—and that's all they need to know. Jindal can leap up and down, he can call [Sleezebag] out, and what does he get for his trouble? He gets headlines identifying him only as [Sleezebag]'s "rival." He could be Ted Cruz or Lawrence Lessig for all the newspaper cares.

Other publications have deigned to mention the word "Jindal" in their headlines. And thanks to their generosity, the man may get a polling boost out of this stunt, and good for him.  But there's something painfully apropos about those Business Insider stories. Bobby Jindal, governor of a whole honking state, is currently running, not for President of the United States, but for that heady position: Rival to Donald [Sleezebag].

#.VfLcs55Wdbw.twitter]http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/bobby-what-s-his-name-that-guy-who-hates-[Sleezebag]#.VfLcs55Wdbw.twitter

[Yitzi]

It's not within an order of magnitude ugly enough to begin to reflect their hatefulness.

They support every anti-progress, anti-tolerance, anti-freedom measure you can find out there faintly on the outskirts of the mainstream.  Cheney is Cheney.  Murdock has made his fortune spreading trash, sleeze and lies, and nothing but.  The Koch brothers threatened their employees with massive layoffs if Obama was reelected, which should be a felony.  All do everything they can to undermine democracy.  They are the enemies of freedom and they are the friends of greed, corruption and coercion.

So...how is that different than the implications of "robber barons"?

[Buster's Uncle]

I think I already answered that in the first sentence quoted, elaborated in the rest.

But look at it this way: Robber Baron is a rather shopworn historical term with virtually zero visceral power left.  Nazi or Fascist don't have that problem -and make no mistake; all these fellows are all for the power of the state as long as it doesn't get between them and money, and Cheney in particular did actual entry-level fascism while in power- but Godwin and Vishniac, y'know?

Robber Baron is pretty accurate and covers a lot of it, but rather impotent.  I don't want to Break The Roolz of the Innerwebs, and I don't want to be that guy shouting fascist all the time.   I'd like to have a happy medium that doesn't set off bullcrap alarms so quickly.

Also, Bill Gates is a Robber Baron, but not a statist.  The term completely leaves out that these fellows in question are about money first and last, but thrilled to have their personal values, or at least the values of their followers, legislated as Manditory in between so long as it doesn't conflict with the $Prime Directive$.

They are the Bossmen I talk about sometimes, who want to make us slaves.  Bossman definitely has some nice opprobrium dripping off it, but is just a redneck version of Robber Baron with similar problems.  What to do, Yitzi?  Ideas and Names have power, and as I said in the Facebook speech, our country went way too far 14 years ago and we MUST do more to fight the Bigots and Tyrants subverting the American Way.

Your personal values neither break my leg nor pick my pocket; they've made their personal values my problem by trying to make them manditory.  I'm trying to generate some pushback through the power of Ideas and Names.  It's the American Way.

What to do?

[Yitzi]

I think I already answered that in the first sentence quoted, elaborated in the rest.

But look at it this way: Robber Baron is a rather shopworn historical term with virtually zero visceral power left.  Nazi or Fascist don't have that problem -and make no mistake; all these fellows are all for the power of the state as long as it doesn't get between them and money, and Cheney in particular did actual entry-level fascism while in power- but Godwin and Vishniac, y'know?

Robber Baron is pretty accurate and covers a lot of it, but rather impotent.  I don't want to Break The Roolz of the Innerwebs, and I don't want to be that guy shouting fascist all the time.   I'd like to have a happy medium that doesn't set off bullcrap alarms so quickly.

So basically, you want something that has the same sense that "Robber Baron" had nearly a century ago.

Personally, I think that being used to describe Cheney and his sort might be just what "Robber Baron" needs to get that visceral power back.  After all, the goal shouldn't be to use terms to get people riled up, but to use terms to get them seriously thinking about the issues, and let those issues get them riled up.*

*This follows the general principle that one should engage in debating practice that can only be effectively used by the side that's actually correct.

Also, Bill Gates is a Robber Baron

I don't see him engaging in that sort of corruption, though I may just be missing it.

but not a statist.  The term completely leaves out that these fellows in question are about money first and last, but thrilled to have their personal values, or at least the values of their followers, legislated as Manditory in between so long as it doesn't conflict with the $Prime Directive$.

So maybe call them theocracy-leaning robber barons?  "Theocracy-leaning" isn't a very strong statement...but then, "wants X as long as it doesn't conflict with their primary goal" isn't that extreme a position.

[Buster's Uncle]

Many of the positions not interfering are pretty extreme. 

This is useful feedback, for which I thank you.  At very minimum it helps me hone my  thinking/arguments.

Gates is an overt monopolist, the most central defining characteristic of a Robber Baron when they could manage a monopoly, railroads being a natural monopoly -see also Standard Oil- the difference from the buttholes in question being mostly that he's not very political - and left-leaning, if anything, and non-coercive in his philanthropic activities, to the extent one finds them political at all.  I have profound issues with Monopolists, but that's sort've a side-issue to the evil directly political stuff I'm trying to engage here.

-That's good communications theory about reviving Robber Baron; words only mean what we think they mean.  For that matter, were I a celebrity with widespread influence, or at least mass media access, just trying to append a "fascist-leaning" connotation to "The 1%", almost a contemporary equivalent of Robber Baron, would have promise.

I think that visceral element is crucial, though, to a nobody trying to start something on stupid internet social media and failing to even get any cooperation from liberal friends - one Libertarian so far, and that's it.

-How about dropping the Fascist part and thinking of a something that means Bigots and Tyrants in one instantly-recognizable word?  It would leave the nationalism out, but otherwise cover it...

[Yitzi]

Many of the positions not interfering are pretty extreme. 

Not interfering with what?

Gates is an overt monopolist, the most central defining characteristic of a Robber Baron when they could manage a monopoly

I don't think so; as I see it, the most central defining characteristic of a robber baron was the lack of morals and corrupt behavior, not the monopolisticness per se.

-That's good communications theory about reviving Robber Baron; words only mean what we think they mean.  For that matter, were I a celebrity with widespread influence, or at least mass media access, just trying to append a "fascist-leaning" connotation to "The 1%", almost a contemporary equivalent of Robber Baron, would have promise.

But "the 1%" really isn't a contemporary equivalent of "Robber Baron", since by its origin it is clearly based only on how wealthy someone is and not how ethical they are in the pursuit and usage of such wealth.  Once you use mathematical terminology, there isn't much room for connotation and spin.

I think that visceral element is crucial, though, to a nobody trying to start something on stupid internet social media and failing to even get any cooperation from liberal friends - one Libertarian so far, and that's it.

I think the visceral element is crucial, but does not have to come directly from your terminology.

-How about dropping the Fascist part and thinking of a something that means Bigots and Tyrants in one instantly-recognizable word?  It would leave the nationalism out, but otherwise cover it...

It really wouldn't, since the big problem with Cheney and co isn't that they're tyrants (they're pretty low-key as far as tyrants go) or that they're bigots (they're probably just playing to bigots, and even that not all that hard), but that they're crooks and subverting the political system.  That's why "robber barons" is so good; it pretty much explicitly says "crooks", and it references the last group to subvert the political system that way.

[Buster's Uncle]

[ninja'd - hold on]

Hey, I should clarify a bit of hyperbole I've indulged in recently.  The Democratic party is a sad, sad piece of crap, and I wouldn't really destroy the Republican party if I could snap my fingers and do it that easily.  It is the nature of the universe that without opposition, the Democratic party almost instantly becomes The Man, corrupt, horrible, coercive/oppressive and even more appallingly incompetent.  I'm from an area solidly Democratic before Reagan, and I know.

I just want to shame and undermine the Bigots and Tyrants, and push that hateful un-American bullcrap completely out of the mainstream conversation, in actual purpose.

[Yitzi]

[ninja'd - hold on]

Hey, I should clarify a bit of hyperbole I've indulged in recently.  The Democratic party is a sad, sad piece of crap, and I wouldn't really destroy the Republican party if I could snap my fingers and do it that easily.  It is the nature of the universe that without opposition, the Democratic party almost instantly becomes The Man, corrupt, horrible, coercive/oppressive and even more appallingly incompetent.  I'm from an area solidly Democratic before Reagan, and I know.

I just want to shame and undermine the Bigots and Tyrants, and push that hateful un-American bullcrap completely out of the mainstream conversation, in actual purpose.

The goal shouldn't be to shame and undermine the bigots and tyrants, but to shame and undermine the aspects of the system that cause corrupt, horrible, and oppressive groups to so easily take power.