dayman

The diplomatic lead. Diplomacy. We are not taking a role on the ground or really doing anything other than trying to work within the channels of the UN to get the whole UN to do something to stop the alleged massacres. Why does that upset you so much? We are by definition no inserting our big nose into some conflict. We aren't doing anything other than talking within the international community. The sanctions crippled Assad. He's experiencing higher level defections. Russia no longer ships him weapons (so that's something). What is your beef with merely taking the diplomatic lead? We shouldn't even be involved in speaking to the UN leaders about possible intervention in areas with potential crimes against humanity? Would you have us leave the UN?

I don't see us an intervening in Syria very much at all. Almost nothing that "puts us out there" really, at all. As for why we go along with sanctions...b/c the entire rest of the civilized world has to condemn the regime there. It's that simple. Might Israel like that it happened? Might the Saudi's? Perhaps. Most people have opinions of their neighbors and see their rise or fall as something that will benefit or hurt them. But the simple point is absent the domestic uprising and subsequent crack down and later massacres ... we wouldn't be doing what VERY LITTLE we have done which is basically concur with the rest of the world minus China and Russia. I just don't see what you are so worked up over. We aren't that involved. This did not happen a result of our doing. We are not wasting very much money on this and no American lives or anything...this is a regional conflict as it has played out so far and we are basically not involved. Not any more involved than the rest of the world anyway. This isn't Iraq at all. And just to comment on your comparing the Iraq co-sponsor to what I was describing...I was describing the UN ... not us doing something with only 1 significant partner. Stop talking about this as if McCain gets his way. He doesn't. We are basically doing NOTHING.

Hardly think that is justifying terror for one. I mean that is really, really a stretch. As for economic sanctions being actions of war. Look...Ron Paul is out there. And God bless him and power to you if you want to follow his foreign policy but we just aren't going remove ourselves from the international community the way he would have us do...plain and simple. The world is more globalized than ever, cooperative international resolution of disputes is what the world is. We are going to be involved and yes, we will protect our geopolitical position in the world through dealings within this structure just as everyone else will. This is the "new war"...and the plus is it isn't quite "actual war" for the most part it's just a cross between diplomacy (the game) and chess. Also we have learned some lessons about over meddling. I for one am content in 2012 to only go to war with the international community when we have to (which is very rare that will happen/be agreed upon) and otherwise to impose sanctions ....run covert ops where we need to do so in cases of blatant nose snubbing at the UN.... Keep the boots off the ground, minimize the money spent, and stop being a controlling B word on the world stage and we'll call it a good 4 year turn around. Our actions in Syria do not highly elevate our risk of war btw. Assad is going down, plain and simple. Everyone on earth, even Russia, understands this now. Imposing sanctions on his regime only accelerated/accelerates that process. We have done nothing in Syria that increases our liklihood of war. The only thing that increases that liklihood as prolonged Assad massacre ... our "enemy" there is simply that kind of disorder ... the sanctions have helped. And most importantly, we aren't the most involved by any stretch of the imagination. That has largely been a regional conflict, with most stuff being contained in Syria and neighbors taking sides and supplying the bulk of supplies to either side. That is a good thing. We are keeping our noses out of these things a little more. And Iran is not going to attack us, it's just madness to suggest that. All of the above is of course, purely my view.

B/c we have John McCain instead going on TV talking about how "Mr. President you have turned your back on the good rebels in Syria who only want democracy and are being slaughtered in the streets. The world is waiting for the U.S. the lead, and we do nothing. Mr. President we need to do something now [read: go to war]." Thank God though Obama has not listened and it makes you wonder if McCain wouldn't have been W. Bush #2 if he believes this stuff that comes out of his mouth and given the "Arab Spring"... The bottom line though that guy is sort of just generally opining, which is fair enough and I know we have some people who if given an opportunity to speak in a long form dialogue and w/ no real accountability to the current administration could speak just like him on all these subjects, in fact maybe better. The thing is, for one many of our leaders involved are in the middle of the situation. They are working through it. Iran being critical is note something they are unaware of, but it's not something that we are going to be able to do much about right now. That's the reality of our political situation. B/c you see, we are America. We are not an alien looking down from space analyzing the situation in a vacuum. We have our own political dealings as is. All we can actually do is work with who we can, and try not to go to war if we can find the political nerve to sustain us (which we are not and generally have not had too much trouble finding under this administration... thank God for that). Additionally our people involved can only say what they can say. They are actually working believe it or not they can't just come out and speak their mind on it publicly (certainly not when it would usually imply that a bunch of people we need to work with us suck). So yes you do get political speech, not long form open interviews. And of course when you have people like McCain whining about the Syrian blood (which we all get, it's bad, and nobody likes it)...and then people on Fox News calling Obama weak b/c he apparently isn't man handling Russia into action the way Reagan did over this (joke point) there's also political infighting that just hurts us b/c God knows it's the wrong thing to do/say but it effects the public perception and may eventually effect our actions as a result. That guy basically says do what we are doing more or less. Work for a solution and wait it out. Now if we could get the entire international community (Russia, China) on board would we provide a little air support and get involved in a way he probably wouldn't? We would. But that isn't going to happen. And in any event that would everybody doing that. So long story short, we aren't actually doing anything that is so different from what he wants to do. And as we see more internal defections, less support from Russia, Iran can only continue to support so much more with their own problems/sanctions, it's only a matter of time before it regime topples over under it's own weight and the thing transitions into whatever the hell it is going to be next...all w/ out Western intervention. That's the way I see it anyway. I know you are not an Obama fan, and for some unknown reason completely and utterly hate Hillary Clinton as Sec of State...but we're not going nuts over this. And generally speaking we haven't gone nuts over too much (including Iran) and that's good. I know Romney will go to Israel this summer and beat his chest over Iran...but what we're doing is a better approach to the rhetoric he will spout over that situation (or any situation when it comes to the way he talks about foreign policy). Long story short, this administrations foreign policy is not so far removed from sanity as you may think simply b/c we don't have Clinton doing 60 minutes each week giving her thoughts on everything. We are a player, not an observer we can't just talk openly about anything from the high positions involved...but you can look at our actions and generally speaking we're pretty good at least compared to what we have been.

And why do some of them think America has a secret pro-Islamic fundamentalist agenda to impose on the world? Many of them from trash conservative blogs and news cites you empower with your crazyness. And sadly, also some from elected officials in our own country. Pressed by American reporters to explain where they got the idea that their new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, had been foisted on them through a U.S. plot, rather than the will of the majority, several Egyptians cited information gathered from American blogs or news sites. An Egyptian-American Christian who met Mrs. Clinton on Sunday cited recent claims by Representative Michele Bachmann, a Republican, “that the Obama Administration is pursuing a closeted pro-Muslim agenda,” in a conversation with Time magazine’s correspondent, Abigail Hauslohner. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/egyptians-who-jeered-clinton-cite-american-conservatives-to-argue-u-s-secretly-supports-islamists/

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know." Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United). Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it." Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

And thus the "government bad, me Tarzan" sentiment rears its head to nonsensically justify anything the GOP does as "pro-people" even when it's anti-people. Why it's so hard to wake up and actually be somewhat independent even if it means criticizing your own party...I will never know. It's not that hard. You aren't ACTUALLY a Republican you know, you are an American. You can think whatever you want on issues and still generally associate with the side that you overall support given the options. Everything that comes out of Obamas mouth, or Romney's mouth, or the house consensus, or the Senate...it's all fair game. Stop being so predisposed to agree with "who you are supposed to agree with" on each issue.

I should have known given this is PPP that people here generally would fight/vote against their ability to know things. Turn on a tv in a swing state. It isn't complicated, it isn't about your freedom of speech being eroded, it's very simple. Large donors to anonymous PACs that represent a handful of people shaping the public discussion is something some people want to know about. That is all. If other normal people tell them "no it's not FREE SPEECH" or "c'mon man the superPACS are good" then so be it. This is America. GOP has huge membership groups that dominate it. Gun lobby for one. And like I said I don't even care if the number drops to include them. GREAT! And the "someday" was saying that even if he didn't want to look it up now ... he could if he did. Put down the beer it's a weekday.

There's a reason you aren't on the Supreme Court. Glad that ended the discussion though. Enjoy your (even more than ever) bull **** political advertisement system while it lasts b/c sooner or later (maybe not this election) your precious, fictitious, anonymous $4 million dollar advertising drops are going to go away. I guess we'll be China then. I'm glad you are happy with things as is. And just so all you know, it's not really even the Presidential election that's the worst. If you want to know the true nonsense it's the Senate races. The Senate money (and to a muchlesser extent the house) is where America is truly bought and sold. And it's not a Republican/Democrat thing...a lot of times (particularly where I'm at and w/ the house campaigns) it's bought-Republican v. actual-citizen-Republican. Spoiler alert, the bought guy always wins.

That's the thing though, the way I see it you don't have to be worried about it. You just have to say...if in the event I someday am or want to know more...would I like that information to be there for me up-to-date and including "social welfare superPACS?" If the answer is ... yes ... then why would you not support it. It's simply disclosure and there is nothing complicated about it...there's really no concrete or significant argument against it...everyone should just...support it. Whether you want to know or don't...support being able to know.

Then we get what we basically have now. Bunk info from both sides, and a constant war to out "bunkify" the market...they don't even talk to each other they talk at fictitious caricatures of the other guy (both sides are exactly equal in that btw even though I know a lot of people on this board believe some of the ridiculous ways Obama is characterized as)....efforts to discredit are rarely effective even assuming they sometimes are then it's just an effort to out bunk and then discredit the other bunk. It's nonsense. And it won't change with this bill, let me be clear on that. But people will have more ammo to dig through WHY what they are seeing/hearing is what they are seeing/hearing and I don't care who you are you typically want to know who the hell is talking. There's no way vague and uncertain arguments about political shake downs and private employment backlash (when you give 10K lol) outweigh a clear, identifiable disclosure interest that ALL AMERICANS (dem or rep) share.

First off it is 10K in the Bill now. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering it but that's just me. As is are you going to give 10K all by yourself? Is the fear of possible retaliation in certain private markets against some people something that outweighs the need for timely disclosure so that all the people of America can (if they choose to) find out who it is that are whispering in their ear to vote this way or that? I can see a potential concern that you are raising. But it's no where near enough, for my taste, to justify people not supporting more timely disclosure and disclosure of these "spookyPACS" that are no more social welfare groups than the Nazis were. They're PACS plain and simple. If you are afraid of a 3rd party retaliating against you (obviously in a way that is lawful, in some situation you may have legal recourse but in many like the one you are posing probably not) as a result..you are going to have to be a big boy and make the call. If you give over 10K, you can't be hidden. So decide. The exact number, people can differ as to what is appropriate but the overall point IMO is that all Americans should support more disclosure. This is something many GOP members in the Senate (including Mr. McCain) LONG supported...until last night. If you want to speak, you can speak per Citizens United. If the people want to know who you are when you enter the public discussion, they should be able to know and know while you are speaking. It's really that simple.

Why though? You don't want to know more about American Crossroads (who pelt my state with ad after ad) or any of the other organizations (including Democratic PACS who really have raised less money but been more effective as of late anyway) that avoid disclosure requirements b/c they are "social welfare" groups. Why would you not want to be able to know if you chose to. I mean we all know it's Rove's PAC, but wouldn't you prefer to be able to easily find up to date info on who exactly is funding the ads you see every other commercial break who are trying so hard to convince you and your neighbors to vote a certain way? There just ins't any reason for the common AMerican to oppose this.

He really does seem to be personally exposed based on this story.

The campaigns themselves are fine. Law requiring disclosure superPac information more quickly is something you are against why exactly? You don't want to know stuff quickly and are emotional in defending your right to be kept stupid?

It helps to strengthen disclosure requirements. Give more than 10K? Report within 24 hours, it's on the internet within 48. The general idea is that people should be able to find out, contemporaneously with their being hit with advertising, and BEFORE the election is over btw (free from evasion and stalling that happens now) who is saying what they're saying...so they can consider it as they will in context. The idea it chills speech? It's ridiculous. If you won't say something b/c your name might be linked with it, maybe it's a good idea you think twice. If you want to enter the realm of public discussion regarding our elections by giving over 10K (really IMO I wouldn't mind dropping it lower...bring on in the unions and NRA...if that's the GOP concern they should lobby for MORE sunlight) then enter the realm of PUBLIC discussion. It's not that hard. Citizens United majority decision talked about prompt disclosure being the remedy for the potential ills the dissent was concerned about. Nothing in the first amendment gives you a right to secret speech or protects you from potential legal consequences of your speech. If you want to take a stand but ONLY if nobody knows it is you, or if you want to push a message but feel it isn't effective unless people don't know it is you, well...go !@#$ yourself. All types of GOP Senators and House Members and perhaps some pundits will talk about how more sunlight in a more timely manner is somehow bad. It will restrict speech. It is purely political. It's garbage. Disclosure is a good thing. I fail to see how anyone can ultimately deny that with a straight face without resorting to nonsense political arguments.

It's far enough away. Superpacs put all kinds of stuff on the air, most of which is trash. Disclose who pays for it. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you vote GOP you don't have to be against this. It shouldn't be a party line issue. If you give tons of money, then give it in a way that makes sure it will be spent so you aren't embarrassed for people to know it is you. You think the issue is really supporting Mitt Romney or Obama? Of course not. The issue is the trash ads that comes out from either side. B-Man is retarded by the way as always. Any issue in the history off PPP he seems to just google "find me the most conservative take on this to convince me it's bad." And then you run here and post the most ridiculous articles ever written. It's not scaring ExxonMObile or Sheldon Adelson. That's retarded. It's fair to know who is primarily funding the massive tv campaigns that are supposedly "on their own" and no associated with the actual campaigns. And it shouldn't even be a party issue for people to know who is shoveling **** at them. Wake up B-Man quite being, as DC Tom would aptly describe you, "an idiot." The bottom line, if you are a large donor to superPac TV ads put your name on it. Take some accountability for the messages you barrage the American people with. It's that simple. There's nothing more to it. It's something everyone should support, not something Democrats should see as a tool and Republicans a threat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/senate-bill-would-require-nonprofits-to-reveal-donors.html

Interesting piece about the largest political contributor of this election (maybe ever idk). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/his-man-in-macau-inside-the-investigation-into-sheldon-adelsons-empire/

I don't know about that. I would sell Bain as a success as he has done and it should be easy...but you have to talk about the companies Bain bought and what those companies did b/c those are the jobs people understand and care about. He has to make the argument that Bain was valuable to the American economy. He did that alright round 1 w/ the general attacks on private equity flopping (although a lot of that was the Obama campaign botching the first round). But in this new wave he's getting drowned out. He needs to adapt and find a way to say "Look, I ran Bain. We did a lot of good. I know business. As for the specific examples the President wants to use against me, those show first hand I know what government policy means to the decisions of business decision makers. I'm ready to change policy so that those decisions benefit America more than they have in the past, so that shot callers make the decisions America wants them to make b/c they're the most profitable decisions." Then roll into some ideas you want to run on. It doesn't seem that hard. You have to expose yourself a little, it's true. But you will be exposed either way. YOu have to be proactive and then transfer the discussion to the policy you think will change the situation for the better from American workers perspective. To do this you need to come out with your vision, specifics...then you can sell that you are a business guy on their side. You can't basically expose yourself to a business record that didn't always grow American jobs without some specifics on the plan that show you are in fact trying to do that in office. Generally speaking though, you have to own what you are running on. If you want the discussion on Bain and not Mass...then you can't marginalize it and run from it. Hard as it may be, you have to sell the success/high points and then use the vulnerable examples as a chance to explain why your specific policy you want to enact as President will change that.

You have to reduce issues to a way that you can communicate them to run for office. Now isn't really the time to just be realizing this as a Presidential campaign. And he was hammered (to be fair with far less money) on this in the primary and it lost him South Carolina ... later on you had Santorum going around proclaiming him the worst Republican to run against Obama ... Santorum is Santorum and I know the campaign hates him but they should at least listen to his attacks. He was trying to sell himself by saying Romney will have a difficult time selling himself over Obama b/c of Romneycare, wall street backlash, tax reform as a hot topic etc...this wasn't Santorum being a genius. This was Santorum stating the obvious. So from a campaign stand point you would think they would be ready to defend their own guy well on obvious points. Plant some seeds early, try and control the discussion, guard against potential pitfalls (taxes, the SEC filing)...but the discussion got away the tax/filing is currently hitting hard and the Obama referendum isn't going to be a campaign pitch if Obama uses these to continue to frame it as an actual election with 2 candidates where 1 is building the middle the class and the other is a rich outsourcing tax cheat who is nothing like average Americans. Now may not be the time to teach economics but he's got to be ready to sell what he's offering ... his economic vision with some level of detail and himself as a business man in a non-negative light.

And that sentiment is something the Romney campaign should be able to sell, would you agree? Why not try to own it? If some outsourcing happened under his watch then explain the situation that motivates business to do so and how you understand that well and want to enact policies to make America more competitive. Or you would just try and distance yourself from your own company even when there's clear ammo w/ the SEC filings...that seems less effective. If the tax issue isn't going away, why not just release them and say "there's the tax structure as is...we should reform it in following ways" and roll right into some specific plans for America regarding tax reform. They are going to have to outline a vision for America. If you are having trouble dealing with some fire then use it as a platform when all cameras are on you to talk about those issues and your vision for a plan regarding them. They said themselves...if you are defending you are losing....and then they just ... defend. Campaign wise the whole thing seems botched at this moment. Is this you channeling your frustration at over the Romney campaign into fueling your hate for Obama further?

They basically get at political/media lies/ridiculousness. The democrats have the presidency and for that year had both house and senate. If nothing else that alone sort of calms their propensity for those sort of things in that time period...what even handed approach would you like the show to have taken? Over the past few year certain elements that line up on the right just leave way more on the table to call ridiculous behavior...and certainly in that year. Even the oft referenced Occupy movement wasn't going then...

Last episode was the best yet in terms of the actual development of the show. As for the hard line liberal agenda...sure that is fair. But it's important to note..it's really focused on the radical elements...the tea party...the conspiracy theories and stuff...it hasn't necessarily been "anti-conservative." As the main character says over and over "I'm a registered Republican." Now take it for what it's worth...very little...but the premise is really more anti-radical GOP as opposed to anti-GOP generally speaking.

Just a disclaimer here this all politics I'm talking. Not policy or the candidates value etc.... The Romney campaign is clearly getting worked at the moment. So it's easy to say this now, and there is a long road ahead and Obama-camp will make mistakes and get pounced on and Romney-camp will also make more mistakes going forward...but as of right now it really seems kind of like the Romney campaign was not ready. The part highlighted above is what he obviously needs to do. But the narrative is nonexistent at the moment. The tax thing has completely gotten away from him, and as they always say citing Kerry if you get defined negatively early then when you come with whatever your pitch is later people tune out. Romney had a hard time putting people away in the GOP primary but was able to kind of stick around and drop strategic money bombs and ultimately out last all those candidates...who were IMO (and most people's I think) weak. He was sort of, by definition, a weak candidate himself based on his ability to deal with that group. But it was brutal, he refined his skills and you would think at worst he would be capable going forward with good political strategy. But this is sort of strange and tell me if you think I'm wrong. Does the campaign seem unprepared? They're sort of leaking nonsense about the VP, now talking about moving the pick up early to change the subject, and really the push back from those interviews regarding the tax issues did nothing. When you know you are going to distance yourself from Mass Governor tenure and that the Olympics is only going so far...you put business achievements/private sector success at the for front. Fair enough what else can you do. But this is post-'08. You have to know that can be made a weakness and you must be ready for heavy hitting in an effort to make it a weakness. So when the most predictable punch from Obamas campaign comes and comes hard, from a serious campaign that can spend on your level...you have to be ready to deal with it. If you know it's going to hurt and you aren't going to release more taxes and can't get into a debate delving into the necessary reality of outsourcing or whatever...then you should probably be ready to counter quickly with what you were talking about 3rd. But yet...it hasn't come. They need to roll out a more defined, specific and articulable vision. Obama has rolled out his counter to the "economy sucks, referendum" with his focus on the middle class angle/build for the future angle...and then came hard with the negatives on top of that. Romeny campaign response? Seems to have been at this point to just sort of eat it hoping they can endure it and get through it but they aren't really doing anything effective to minimize the damage or even roll out their own competing "vision." They seem to still be in referendum mode. There's always a way out from the fire and it's early but the campaign seems unprepared and is in this moment getting worked politically. I'm not sure what to think other that they didn't really foresee this and thus are not prepared to counter it effectively on the spot? Maybe they thought the Bain attacks failed and they got through them a few weeks back and thus let their guard down a bit and got caught sleeping? All in all, it just seems this was handled badly and it's hard to imagine they didn't have some sort of more defined plan.