General Political Thread

[lost highway]

I was thinking about this and forgot to share it a few days ago when it was more relevant to the conversation:

 

 

It's a few years old, so I imagine some pie pieces have shifted, and the total amount of imports may be slightly reduced, but we're more invested in Pemex and maple leaves than anything else, eh?

 

And this estimate from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers:

 

 

Current oil supplies

There are an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption will be sufficient to last 40 years.

By 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – around 20% of what we currently consume. It is likely by then that the world’s population will be twice as large, and more of it industrialised (and therefore oil dependent).

[ih8music]

Just another law-abiding and harmless gun owner we hear so much about.

[KevinG]

So tomorrow is fifth Obama's State of the Union Address.  It will be an interesting one for sure.  So just wondering if y'all will be watching (and whose coverage).  Also wondering if you have any hopes/expectations of the speech.  

 

And what about the rebuttals?  Apparently the GOP has decided to do 3 different rebuttals to the speech (Cathy McMorris, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul).  It is funny to see that there is a need for three different rebuttals.  It is indicative of the fragmentation of the right.  The GOP official, TEA Party, and whatever Rand Paul is now.  

 

Anyway, I of course will be watching, probably on NBC, and bouncing between MSNBC and FoxNews once the network coverage is over (I am assuming that CNN will be wall to wall Bieber coverage so I won't go there).  

 

As for hopes or expectations, I know the speech will be full of big promises and most of them empty (remember when GWB said we would have Hydrogen cars and we would be on Mars, in like 25 years?)  But these empty promises do have an effect to move the conversation and get people talking about issues.  Also PBO needs to be more forceful, especially with the horrible congress we are stuck with.  He needs to really use the bully pulpit to his best advantage, though I think that might behind him.  He needs to focus on the big issues facing this country, income inequality and economic growth.  He also needs to say if congress will not help in this he will use his constitutionally given powers to what he can to move this country forward.

 

 

   

[ih8music]

I don't see the speech tomorrow making one whit of a difference about anything.  Maybe he should give a nod to the grammy's and turn it into an awkward and ill-conceived duet with Boehner.

[bleedorange]

People still pay attention to these things? I'll probably be reading/playing with my daughter. Or I'll fire up Netflix.

[Sir Stewart]

Spoiler: the state of the union is strong.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Spoiler #2: the speech will end with, "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."

[KevinG]

People still pay attention to these things? I'll probably be reading/playing with my daughter. Or I'll fire up Netflix.

 

It is kinda sad that people don't pay attention to these things.  It is the fault of the politicians not using the platform correctly, or not delivering on the promises made.  But at the same token, more people should pay attention and hold the politicians accountable for what is said.  Apathy is never good for a democracy.  

 

Yes it is political theatre, but it sets an agenda, this is what is going to be talked about.  

[bleedorange]

It might be sad that more people don't take the responsibility of keeping themselves informed. However, I don't think one's interest in the state of the union address is an accurate gauge of that.

[uncool2pillow]

It is kinda sad that people don't pay attention to these things.  It is the fault of the politicians not using the platform correctly, or not delivering on the promises made.  But at the same token, more people should pay attention and hold the politicians accountable for what is said.  Apathy is never good for a democracy.  

 

Yes it is political theatre, but it sets an agenda, this is what is going to be talked about.  

It's always been political theater and the agenda setting is, IMO, bullshit.  Before radio and TV, the State of the Union was mailed to Congress.  We'd all be better off if we went back to that routine.  I'm all for transparency, but sometimes it leads to pandering.  This is why I am adamantly opposed to televising the Supreme Court.

[Guest Jules]

Is it tomorrow? I'm gonna watch hockey instead.

[IRememberDBoon]

youre like most Americans. watch something else and then tell us how full of sh*t politicians are.

[Atticus]

I don't think an American needs to watch a state of the union address to form the opinion that American politicians are full of shit.  They can just look at America.   We think it's more important that every American have a TV, smart phone and data plan than an education and healthcare.  Speaks for itself.

[KevinG]

I don't think an American needs to watch a state of the union address to form the opinion that American politicians are full of shit.  They can just look at America.   We think it's more important that every American have a TV, smart phone and data plan than an education and healthcare.  Speaks for itself.

 

I am really surprised by the level of apathy towards the SOTU.  Sure it is political theatre but there is no denying the importance of the speech.  Sure it is a bunch of promises that will likely never get fulfilled, but it is an expression of a vision that our president has for our country.  Like PBO or hate him he is the president, wouldn't you at least like to hear what he has to say about our country?  

 

Furthermore, wouldn't you like to hear the words straight from his mouth before they are distorted by the various talking heads?  It is that reason why I think it is important to watch the STOU.  Everyone here who is so apathetic about the speech tonight, will hear something about it the next day and form an opinion about it (and probably comment on it).  But this opinion is through a distorted lens.  

 

Now I am not saying watching the speech gives you an undistorted view.  You bring your own biases when you watch, but I like to first start with the source before forming my opinions.  I would rather not base my opinion on another's opinion.   

[Atticus]

I never said I wasn't going to watch it.

[Sir Stewart]

What the hell is the State The Of Union?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?

[KevinG]

I never said I wasn't going to watch it.

 

didn't mean to point you out as not watching it, I actually quoted your post, but had some others in mind.  

 

Back in my post college days, me and my politically inclined buddies would watch it like a football game (beer, snacks, etc.)  It was fun.  

[Beltmann]

I stopped making a point to watch the SOTU years ago, but not because I find it uninteresting.  Instead of watching, I prefer to read the transcript in its entirety.  First, it's (much) quicker when you don't have to endure all the pageantry, the dramatic pauses, the neverending applause.  Second, reading the speech transforms it from theater into a policy paper, which makes it easier to judge the ideas within.  There's nowhere for the ideas to hide; it's all there on the white page, unable to hide behind images, flags, and vocal tones.  It just seems like a better way to engage with the content.  (Unfortunately, it also usually exposes the content as a lot of vague, empty, generic crowdpleasing rather than measured, thoughtful defense of policy.)

I usually end up watching some of the speech, sometimes all of it.  But it's not automatic for me, and certainly not a necessity.

[IRememberDBoon]

most people have never listened to The President speak for more that ten minutes but they can all tell you exactly what he stands for.

[gogo]

I stopped making a point to watch the SOTU years ago, but not because I find it uninteresting.  Instead of watching, I prefer to read the transcript in its entirety.  First, it's (much) quicker when you don't have to endure all the pageantry, the dramatic pauses, the neverending applause.  Second, reading the speech transforms it from theater into a policy paper, which makes it easier to judge the ideas within.  There's nowhere for the ideas to hide; it's all there on the white page, unable to hide behind images, flags, and vocal tones.  It just seems like a better way to engage with the content.  (Unfortunately, it also usually exposes the content as a lot of vague, empty, generic crowdpleasing rather than measured, thoughtful defense of policy.)

 

I usually end up watching some of the speech, sometimes all of it.  But it's not automatic for me, and certainly not a necessity.

 

I agree with you about reading the transcripts.  When I watch, and I don't always, I'm specifically watching for the theatrical moments: the applause breaks; the times when the two sides of the chamber have wildly different reactions; seeing who has been placed in the audience to illustrate a specific point; the looks on Boehner and Biden's faces...  I find those moments to be fascinating, but overall, I don't usually feel that they make it worth my while to sit through the whole thing, when the transcript will be available and much more easily digested.

[uncool2pillow]

most people have never listened to The President speak for more that ten minutes but they can all tell you exactly what he stands for.

Wow. Just like you telling us what conservatives think.

[Atticus]

Well that was unimpressive. The Republican response lady sounded like she was reading a children's story.

[Sir Stewart]

most people have never listened to The President speak for more that ten minutes but they can all tell you exactly what he stands for.

 

Most people eat sandwiches sometimes, and they - wait, maybe not most. Forget it, nevermind. Can a moderator delete my post please?

[KevinG]

Well that was unimpressive. The Republican response lady sounded like she was reading a children's story.

 

Which one? There were five.

 

The "official" GOP response was atrocious.  Not necessarily the substance (though I do have some issues) but her tone was just odd.  It is tough spot, PBO is a very good orator and McMorris just could not follow it up.  

 

As for the SOTU, it was a good speech as speeches go, the regular laundry list of we should do this, we need to that, etc.  What was interesting to hear was PBO's plan to get things done via executive order.  Many people have a problem with it (and to me it bothersome for the precedent it sets.)  But PBO was put into this position because of the stonewalling in congress.  Now, I am not saying, nor did the president say congress should do what he wants, but what he is saying is congress should do something.  If congress through their partisan games cannot move on issues, the only option left is an executive order.  That is my hope anyways.

[Atticus]

Which one? There were five.

 

The "official" GOP response was atrocious. Not necessarily the substance (though I do have some issues) but her tone was just odd. It is tough spot, PBO is a very good orator and McMorris just could not follow it up.

 

Yeah, that one.